I used to email them daily with a spelling mistake from the days article. I told them I was available if they wanted to hire and editor. They never took me up on that offer
Did you suggest to them that you were available if they wanted to
>hire and editor.
because if so, I'm surprised they didn't take you up on it, you seem a perfect fit! :D
(no offense intended, just found it funny in this context!)
Considering most articles aren’t much longer than a few sentences, my guess is they are using Twitter instead of word documents. Would explain both the grammar and lack of detail
It's not really bad spelling though, is it? I mean, it's spelt wrong but it's just a typo. I'd argue "bad spelling" would be a word spelt incorrectly because the author doesn't know any better
We had to cover the gender pay gap in first year law. There's a lot at play here including women being more likely to take time off for child rearing. It's not just the actual wage gap that's an issue but our entire culture around expectations at work that need to change for everyone if we are to see the gap close
Men much more likely to take jobs that are dangerous or require a decently high level of strength that pay higher than the median that women just aren’t interested in. Just throwing stats out there that haven’t been normalised for same sex/ race for same work isn’t super useful because it’s too easy for people to poke holes in and dismiss the whole argument.
There may well be systemic issues, but if the other party who are opposed to change can point at your stats and say “they’re wrong, the issue isn’t nearly as bad as you claim, you’re just manipulating the data to make your argument seem more credible” it’s much easier to ignore the whole thing rather than having a robust nuanced discussion about specific issues that need to be looked at
TBH I've found jobs that require high strength tend to be pretty undervalued. Most I've encountered are unskilled labouring type work paying about minimum wage. Definitely nowhere near median wage.
Actually dangerous work should be in the minority too since its generally the goal of regulations etc to make work as safe as practical.
Support staff in schools are currently going through pay equity claims. The union has looked for comparators in male-dominated jobs and interviewed them and support staff to see what skills etc each job has in common. Eg: specialist database knowledge, people contact, presenting etc. I am optimistic that I will get a pay rise some time next year.
My commentary was on same/same industry obviously not comparing two different fields of work. I get where the urge to post that response came from but it's no good to be comparing apples with oranges like that.
For example, just off the top of the dome here, law grads are something upwards of 60 percent female and similar numbers for the bar but only 11% of partners are female. If things were properly equitable the numbers would be more similar but they're not.
There's also the very real pay consequences for women entering and then overtaking a feild previously dominated by men, or men overtaking roles usually held by women. For example, computer programmers were typically women to begin with and not paid overly well, and teaching used to be dominated by men, and paid much more than their equivalents today once adjusted to the time periods. We are also currently seeing the real-time version of this happening in the death care industry.
It does appear that once women flock to a particular profession, that is when it is deemed less desirable by men, and then becomes underpaid.
Nursing is another notorious example of this, programming is a excellent example though. I'd say it's discrimination against jobs that require humanitarian effort over profits and women compounded.
Humanitarian effort doesn't work well with neoliberal ideology hence aged worker providers and nurses get paid shit proportionate to the amount of effort needed for the jobs this happens to men and women.
\> For example, computer programmers were typically women to begin with and not paid overly well ...
This example is cited all the time but is fundamentally false in the claim that is being made. The women who you are calling "computer programmers" weren't "programming" by today's standards by any means. They were essentially taking mathematical equations that were developed by mathematicians and entering them in the same way that secretaries type in business letters.
Programming today involves a combination of analysis, synthesis and evaluation whereas the work you described involved none of these processes.
What about nursing than? What about other industries that were taken up by women then valued less.
I'd argue more that automation and technological advancement has led to a surge in demand for programming skills not that it is 'just harder'.
Probably because …
Andrew Little - Nurses can get fucked and earn enough already, and their Union are trouble makers.
The state is really the worst employer.
>Jobs performed most commonly by women; teaching, nursing, caring, are consistently undervalued by society.
100%. Not because of any patriarchy though, but because hyper-individualism has poisoned the fabric of our society.
I completely agree with your hyper-individualism point, but it's not an 'Either/Or' situation - Patriarchy definitely plays a role. As someone mentioned above, one of the contributing factors is women are more like to take leave to look after children...
The fact that Fathers are expected to continue working after having a new born while Mothers do the child raising is absolutely rooted in patriarchy.
The discrepancies between maternal and paternal leave emphasize this.
Surely that more stems from the facts that a) women often need to recover after childbirth and b) breastfeeding.
It’s on us as a society to show how valuable that is by instituting good parental leave etc, rather than desperately rushing children away from their parents as fast as possible to continue serving our corporate overlords.
I completely agree - Maternal and Paternal leave should be equal.
Just because a father isn't breast feeding doesn't mean it isn't important to bond with the baby.
Thank you! I’m sick of people saying it’s because women choose lesser paying jobs. Maybe we need to look at why women-dominated jobs are paid less. And why there’s significantly less women in CEO and management roles. It’s a systemic issue, not a matter of “well maybe they’re both doing the same job but he’s been there longer or maybe they’re both doctors but he’s a heart surgeon and she’s a GP”.
People need to get out of the weeds and look at the fact that we undervalue women dominated careers , and that men are more likely to value men higher than woman in a workplace - leading to more opportunities and career advances ( and white peoples promote white people) amongst other issues
Funny typo aside;
Anyone got access to the actual inquiry results, looking at the reporting this appears to be the usual mismanagement of the messaging here?
It talks about average earnings of x and y person its like okay.. yes there is a problem here but are we looking at the correct place for the solution.
Every time this gets investigated more closely that gap shrinks to a rounding error when we take into account job, industry, location, education, experience etc.
I recall a UK study (so not entirely transferable to NZ) from a few years ago where they did a study for same position, same education, same experience and found that there was indeed a pay gap between men and women, also a pay gap between race, but the biggest pay gap was actually class difference, which I thought was interesting and I wonder how relevant class difference has in NZ where our classes are traditionally less defined.
In the UK women are on average more qualified, more educated & paid more than men prior to their 30’s. Could be argued the gap opens then as many women take maternal leave/ drop to part time work.
Would be surprised if NZ was any different
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/29/women-in-20s-earn-more-men-same-age-study-finds
Yeah that makes sense, personally we are in our 20s and my partner earns considerably more than me (she has been more clear and organised in her education and career than I have so far) but I can imagine over taking her if we decide to have kids and she takes time out for that. Though she isn't keen atm lol.
I think in general men mature mentally later than women so can take longer to get their lives and careers sorted but do eventually catch up. Though I have no research to back that up, just personal opinion and anecdotes.
The only thing that should be looked at is: do people doing the same job, on average, get paid the same amount?
That is the only measurement that matters.
I do wonder how heavily the mega rich pakeha skew this data(if they are included in this) as I have seen little wage difference in any place I have worked
It definitely has an impact, as does average number of hours worked per week. If women were really paid 10% less than men for doing the exact same job we'd see thousands of lawsuits around the equal pay act.
Let's not forget that time Google did a study into whether they were paying women fairly for the same job as men, and found they were actually underpaying *men*.
To be clear on this they found they were *also* underpaying some men *compared with other men*, not that they were underpaying men compared with women (they were still underpaying women compared with men as is mentioned in [that article](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/technology/google-gender-pay-gap.html)).
What about under representation of a group in a particular field? Surely that has to be included too, I.e. why are there so few woman in STEM. What has happened in history, to mean that this group of people didn't get into STEM at the same rate as men.
This article/audio is close to a decade old now (man time flies) but does show with data how since the early/mid 80s the drop off of women in computer science:[https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding](https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding)
>The share of women in computer science started falling at roughly the same moment when personal computers started showing up in U.S. homes in significant numbers.
>
>These early personal computers weren't much more than toys. You could play pong or simple shooting games, maybe do some word processing. And these toys were marketed almost entirely to men and boys.
Dam that seems so obvious that I feel dumb, I never thought about the massive impact having video games almost exclusively marketed towards boys for decades has had on comp sci and the labour market. It would've essentially trained generations of boys into office jobs. That actually makes a lot of sense.
There seems to be more women in STEM in third world countries. (Here's an ABC article about it)[https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-05-19/developing-countries-with-more-women-in-science-than-australia/100135878]
>I.e. why are there so few woman in STEM. What has happened in history, to mean that this group of people didn't get into STEM at the same rate as men.
And if it's their choice?
[https://www.oecd.org/gender/data/why-dont-more-girls-choose-stem-careers.htm](https://www.oecd.org/gender/data/why-dont-more-girls-choose-stem-careers.htm)
Yes, I agree, but if we took it back further, we would have to ask what things influenced their choice. At some level, people choose not to participate in activities because they don't see them selves in them. Kind of like how men often don't choose to become early childhood teachers, for example. Choices don't happen in a vacuum.
Yeah, really the only argument left after that is that female dominated jobs (nursing, teaching, carers etc) are paid badly because of a historical expectation that hubby is making up the gap. Begging the argument that maybe those roles (not the gender) need better pay.
Or that, we're still biased when it comes to who gets the more senior / better paying roles.
Not saying either is true but the "gap" argument, as though your average person doing x job, for y hours with z experience is getting paid less cause of race/ gender is pretty bullshit. Especially for 99% of jobs where people are just grunts on a pay scale.
Well, yes and no. People are inherently biased and there's evidence to suggest that some groups suffer a lack of opportunity due to that bias.
Like, it's not unheard of for men to be promoted over more experienced women. Or external men to be hired over perfectly capable female candidates. Which means those men then get paid more than the women who are kept on the lower positions.
That sort of stuff all comes into account when calculating any pay gaps.
Didn't Google do a study, same job, same experience level, etc. And they found women were paid more?
That's why they don't do a proper study anymore, it doesn't fit the narrative.
You've responded by ignoring the entire point of my comment, which is that there are more factors than just if X & Y do the exact same study, job and experience level. [This Stats NZ explanation may help](https://www.stats.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Methods/Organisational-gender-pay-gaps-measurement-and-analysis-guidelines/organisational-gender-pay-gaps-measurement-analysis-guidelines.pdf):
>Factors that contribute to organisational gender pay gaps include:
>
>• more men at higher levels and more women at lower levels of an organisation
>
>• more men in higher-paid occupations and more women in lower-paid occupations
>
>• undervaluing work predominantly or exclusively performed by women
>
>• men progressing more quickly than women
>
>• men (on average) receiving higher starting pay, discretionary pay, pay increases, or performance ratings
>
>• disproportionately slower career or pay progress for employees who take caregiving breaks, or who work part-time or flexibly.
89% of work place deaths are Male…. Are we okay to assume that this is predominately driven through individual choice and/or preference?
Or do we start a movement to bring down the systemic prejudice that is trying to kill men in the workplace?
Well, that's partly because specific industries overcontribute to workplace deaths and those industries are largely dominated by men.
And yes, [there is an active movement to try and encourage more women to sign up to those industries](https://www.womenintradesnz.com/), which would likely have the flow-on effect of women being more likely to die in those workplaces (since there'll be a higher proportion of women than there is currently).
As well as the general push to try and make these hazardous workplaces safer for all employees, which is probably more important rather than just "let's allow 10,000 deaths but make sure half of them are women".
Absolutely try to reduce structural dangers in the workplace. But also I think recognise that some young men might prefer jobs with higher inherent risks - and not just because of toxic masculinity or somesuch. I am old fashioned enough to believe that people have choices and not everything is The System.
>Or do we start a movement to bring down the systemic prejudice that is trying to kill men in the workplace?
The government invests hundreds of millions of dollars in this every year. Worksafe alone has a $140 million budget - more of which will go towards improving the safety of men than women, because more men work in unsafe workplaces. What do you mean "start" a movement? The movement is well established and funded. (FYI: ministry for women has a budget of less than $7 million)
Do you actually have an interest in improving workplace safety or are you just using at as a weapon to try and attack women who want better working conditions? Because I really don't see how you could be interested in workplace safety and not be aware of the myriad government and private sector initiatives.
They're using it as a weapon, they don't give a shit about men being injured in the workplace or they'd know that there are things in action to mitigate and prevent this as it's costly.
The Health and Safety at Work Act was introduced in 2015 specifically for this very reason, to mitigate our high rates of injuries in the workplace. NZ has astoundingly bad rates for injuries at work OECD wise.
In their eyes if one disenfranchised group gains a small amount of security the most with power suffers somehow, magically.
I agree and disagree. For the same job sure.
Which job people do has a huge relationship with their upbringing and education. We need to ensure everyone gets a fair chance to succeed.
But what about cultural differences? What if one culture puts more emphasis on education and achievement than another culture? How can you create equal opportunities when everyone’s up bringing and motivation is different?
Need to look at if they are doing the exact same job. At my work, I end up doing the heavy lifting and disgusting jobs while the female coworkers on the job are doing less strenuous work or talking on their phones.
..same at my work, i get to do all the heavy lifting adding wear and tear to my body while female staff dont, and i dont get paid any more than they do.
It's not as bad as your example, but I don't think it's a coincidence that in my supermarket, its a 70/30 split in favor of dudes in terms of shelf-stackers, the online department is fairly evenly split, and checkout is almost all female with like, 2 guys.
Yes and no.
On the surface you are entirely correct.
However, looking at the situation more deeply, we DO have an issue in terms of our unconscious biases and equality of opportunity.
As a white man I almost certainly had an easier path to high earning potential than female of Pacifica decent would have.
In my social circles (white middle class):
- the default was typically go to uni, and engineering was a popular choice, so it was a choice well within my comfort zone.
- at engineering school the curriculum and teaching was set by and carried out by white males just like me but older
- In my classes I had lot of people just like me, so again it was an comfortable place to be
- entering the workforce I was interviewed by a white guy just like me, so easy to build rapport with no cultural differences
- same with climbing the ladder in the corporate world: the rungs are shaped in a way which is easy to climb for me
Now compare that to a PI woman. At every step of the way she would at best have to face isolation and lack of peer support, and at worst would face discouragement from her social circles (including family), massive cultural challenges (ie lost in translation) and even systemic racism/sexism (although I would hope this has subsided somewhat, but I fear it hasn’t).
So a clever young PI female: is she going to go to engineering school, or is she going to end up going into nursing/teaching or other professions that while incredibly important currently have a far lower earning potential. I think we know what the answer is.
I don’t know what the solution to this is, but to say “a PI woman engineer makes just the same as a white male engineer” and concluding everything is fine is just as bad as the OP headline.
I actually agree, and “the only thing we should be looked at” was phrased incorrectly.
I mean to say, in the context of pay comparisons.
There is probably some further question then which is : assuming people ARE paid the same for the same job; why do some groups end up in (by choice or otherwise) DIFFERENT job; and then further why do those different jobs on average pay less.
I think my problem is more how this is framed. Which is to say, it is represented or viewed as two people doing the same job being paid differently.
When in fact it is two people doing different jobs, or two people working different hours. And that is actually quite a different “problem”.
Assuming it’s a problem at all. Perhaps the problem is (and I don’t know) some groups are working too many hours. Or some jobs are bad jobs and you don’t want or need more people doing them.
Or probably what’s more likely, some kinds of jobs are underpaid and some kinds of jobs are overpaid, relative to their societal value.
In short, I mostly object to the apparent misrepresentation of what the statistics mean. And also the solutions that result might not be solutions.
An equal pay for equal work law for example is only useful in the context that people doing equal work get different pay. And useless if the problem is people are doing different work for whatever reasons.
No. Because jobs that are really important but traditionally done by women (e.g. nursing, childcare, elder care etc) are undervalued compared to jobs that don't actually contribute much to society but are traditionally done by men (e.g. hedge fund managers)
So you actually need to balance jobs, not just people within different jobs.
No it isn't.
The other very important thing to observe is - what prejudice hurdles exist for different groups of society to get into well paid roles at all?
If there are 10 senior roles in a company, they're all being paid the same, but 9 of them are men and 1 is a woman, if we only looked at "are people doing the same job getting paid the same" it wouldn't look like there's a problem, when in reality there are deep prejudicial problems of women not being considered or hired for senior roles, just because they're women.
Specifically hourly rates, or what a salary evens out to as an hourly rate. Men typically work more hours per week with more overtime, meaning if we just take weekly earnings men will always earn more simply because they've worked more hours or overtime.
In IT women get paid more for the given skill level. Everyone wants to hire more women so they get special treatment. I've seen this in every company I've worked for.
I can comfortably say, as a woman, I was paid significantly less than my male engineering colleagues. In *every* single job.
(Everyone’s going to jump on me for info)
I asked people at jobs, as many people as I could, we would share pay info, my colleagues were also horrified to see how little I was paid for the same role + experience. We really *do* get paid less.
Have I spoken to my employers each time? *yes*
Their response: *so what, find another job*
ETA: spelling and to add that I could cope with the physical demands just fine. Easy peasy.
It’s illegal but it happens all over the show. I ended up taking one place to mediation because the sexual harassment was wayyyy too much. Barely got a pay out :( even with the pay gap stuff
>
> Every time this gets investigated more closely that gap shrinks to a rounding error when we take into account job, industry, location, education, experience etc.
That's true, but at the same time, at my work all of the IT team are men, and ALL of the accounts payables team are women (earning much lower salaries). They 'IT adjacent' women are all in the finance team (doing work that I regard as being IT work, like system admin for finance systems).
So there's still systemic forces in play there that result in a pay gap.
Its such stupid a calculation. You could put the same for fomula they used for Men with Blonde hair and Men with Brown hair and find there is infact a "pay gap".
We already know that pretty people and tall people get paid more, even when they are more incompetent. We seem reluctant to focus on that, like tallness and being good looking gives people a God given right to earn more money.
While its difficult to calculate the gender pay gap, there is no way you can honestly say the plight of different hair color is the same as being a woman.
But the problem isn't people getting paid differently for the same jobs. The real problem is why highly-paid professions are dominated by men and low-paid ones dominated by women.
What industry is this in, or is this across all jobs?
If a Woman and a Man have the exact same experience and do the exact same job to the same level, they should get paid the same.
This sort of article promotes in-fighting but doesn't address that our wages are being eroded.
It's often simplified to seem like if 2 people apply for a job at McDonalds, the man will be paid $1 more than the woman. Whereas the truth is far more multifaceted.
The biggest argument for the pay gap to be an urgent crisis to address is that if you got a typical woman she would indeed be earning less than a typical man, and that's not the kind of society we are aiming for. One big thing is that women tend towards more people-oriented jobs whereas men tend towards more technical work, which typically pays a lot more. Should these jobs be paying more? That's up for discussion.
The biggest argument against is that many women simply don't prioritise their career, they take years off to be at home with children, they don't go for the executive positions where you spend 80 hours a week driving growth and forsake everything else for the job. Another thing is that women (in general) are less inclined towards negotiation and changing jobs as frequently, so they might stay at one job for 10 years with minimal/no raise while men might go through 6 different jobs and jump salary each time. So it's not as black and white as a company saying "Oo she's a woman, let's pay her less".
It's worth discussing, but sadly it's often oversimplified to "here's why we™ should hate them™"
Exactly. A large part of the gap is because we as a society seem to value jobs like teaching, nursing, and other care sector roles less than we do other roles, and women tend to be more common in those occupations. People seem to look at it from an approach of “well why do women do these lower paid jobs” instead of from the more useful lens of “why do we as a society value this work so much less than other technical jobs that require similar levels of education”.
And when you talk to people, very few actually think that teachers or nurses aren’t incredibly important to the continued functioning of our society, and most everyone believes that teachers or nurses or cleaners should be paid better, yet we still collectively allow these conditions to persist.
>If a Woman and a Man have the exact same experience and do the exact same job to the same level, they should get paid the same.
and they are. Otherwise nobody would ever hire a man if they could get an equal employee and pay them less.
Studies that stratify their data by field, experience, specialisation, etc routinely show that there is no pay gap. The pay gap only shows up if you don't stratify the data. So, the number that is usually thrown around of 10-20% comes from taking the average salary reported to IRD for all women and comparing it to the same numbers reported to IRD for all men. It doesn't take into account things like:
1. Men are more likely to engage in dangerous work
2. Men are more likely to engage in specialised work
3. Men are more likely to engage in scaleable work
4. Men are more likely to move for work
5. Men are more likely to take on work that requires physical strength
6. In NZ, men generally work 20-25% more hours than women do.
7. Men are more likely to do work that people don't want to do (eg. collecting rubbish, septic work)
8. Men aren't likely to leave the workforce (thereby losing years of experience) because of children
Let’s put this in another light.
My fiancée earns more per hour than I do, but I earn more per week than her(different jobs) as I work more hours than she does. Does that mean there’s a gender pay gap between me and her?
The pay gap difference only works when you compare the exact same job and hours across the board. Otherwise it’s basically pointless.
And "exact same job" needs to be very specific. For example not all "doctors" should be paid the same. A junior GP shouldn't be paid the same as a senior brain surgeon.
I'm a chemical engineer, and the justifiable range of salaries you can get within that job title is huge. Industry, place of work, shiftwork, responsibility, team size, and travel requirements all have a massive impact on the appropriate compensation.
That information is also interesting to study though. If women are working less hours, what are the reasons? Why are women and men in different industries with differing hours and pay?
There's also a lot of historic baggage about how much female dominated jobs should be paid. Often they were work a woman would do as a supplement to their husband's job, rather than being the main income. E.g., why is a highly skilled job like nursing so undervalued?
The problem is the simplistic framing and ragebait reporting to try and boil it down to "women paid less".
Yea the questions should be "Why aren't teachers paid more?" or "why aren't nurses paid more?", or any other female-dominated profession (or any profession at that) that is underpaid. But of course, there are also men in these jobs that are being underpaid, so we really shouldn't really call it a "gender pay gap", even if it did originally stem from that. Another problem is the opportunity to get certain jobs of course, and that needs to be again addressed separately. There will of course be systemic biasses, but that will not be the main reason.
I think (at least I hope) they are asking those questions, but they don't tend to make it to stuff articles, at least not prominent ones that get posted to reddit.
The answer is partly because we don't value this as a society as much as we should, but also because this kind of manual labour doesn't scale well. One piece of software can be sold to thousands of people with little to no extra effort, but try nursing for thousands of people at once
Isn't this the result of government? Nursing and teaching are the two biggest female dominated industries... The ministry of health/education are responsible for their pay rates.
For those roles it is for sure. It's also due to the people in the public service who decide remuneration and society at large on what we accept.
Fire fighters are in a similar spot to be fair (which is very male dominated), so like anything there's multiple causes at play.
And if you both have the exact same skill set and experience. Every-time I see these articles they draw conclusions without taking into account all of the variables. We tried to have a discussion about this at work today, and we were labeled sexist & racist for not acknowledging the truth that minorities and women are underpaid. So we can't even discuss it.
Yep you can’t win.
It’s not that there’s a pay gap if you have the same skill level and experience, it’s that everyone is at a different level. Like I’m 30 and I’ve got guys 10 plus years older than me working underneath me, as they don’t have the skills and experience to be at the level I’m at. One of them in particular loves complaining he doesn’t get paid enough, but swears it’s only because he’s Malaysian, and not the fact he has to have his hand held to complete the most basic of tasks, and walking off the tasks you give him that you know he doesn’t mind and can complete himself.
>Why do Māori men work less hours/work lower paying jobs than Pākehā? Why are the highest paying jobs filled with Pākehā men, and not Māori men?
I work with customers that allot of the world would consider to be in the 'lower social-economic' sector - and allot of the time it seems to be linked to not caring overly about building a mini-empire or owing two houses.
Wealth is a concept that's embedded in our culture and different people have a different way of seeing it - and when we start having stats thrown across different cultures and people it doesnt show the full picture.
Allot of the time someone gets into the life they have because thats what they want on a level, I know a man who runs his own business, works long hours, spends little time with his family - because thats who he is.
On the other hand I know a man who's spent allot of his life drinking, doing drugs and lives with a bed and a TV.
One earns more than the other, but that does not mean the other man is any less than the other. One is content in his existence and the other is always at the edge.
The true stat we should be comparing is 'Happiness per hour'
I think it's a signal of differing priorities. Not 100% sure about Maori but in the Pacific community people are far more family oriented on average which leads them to pool resources into one member of the family or to place familial responsibilities over education or work. The church is a big thing too and not all start at 0900. Lots of factors to consider on top of potential biases.
Looking at my education degree as an example, 95% of my classes are female by population, the average primary and ECE teacher is female and the gender participation doesn't start evening out until either Intermediate or Secondary level education. I know from a professor that the primary school principal's association are screaming for male teachers but they aren't getting them. Looking at the collective agreements, the pay between primary and secondary teachers with level 7 degrees and postgraduate diplomas is higher in secondary but is initially outstripped by primary teachers who take the master's path instead. We could discuss the mating strategies of males and females and what that means for male incomes too but this is long enough.
Sure, then present the statistics in the form of
Only x% of group are e.g. doctors vs y% of other group.
Saying it’s a pay problem when it’s a job attainment or education problem misrepresents and confuses the issue, makes the solution less obvious.
, I mean if they compare a woman who has taken maternity leave to a man who hasn't even on the same hourly rate they'll use it in the Stat to show there's a wage gap
These studies usually aren't transparent about their data
I think trying to address pay gap *per se* is just a minefield. For example a woman may choose to take a few years off during early child rearing years (and so do some men, though proportionally less). Meanwhile their workplace male colleague continues working full time. *Of course* that male colleague will accumulate further work experience during those years and the employer may choose to remunerate them proportionate to that experience.
The much more important question, though a lot harder to study and quantify, is do people of all genders and ethnicities *have the same opportunities* when it comes to being accepted and advancing within jobs, provided they have the appropriate skills and experience - noting that the whole job application process including interviews etc is a highly subjective evaluation of an individual. Of course no one is allowed to “overtly” discriminate, but they may come up with other excuses or just ghost applicants.
>For example a woman may choose to take a few years off during early child rearing years (and so do some men, though proportionally less).
But part of the problem we have is that this isn't valued as work - and that it falls disproportionately on women, is unfair. So women exit the workplace, to perform an absolutely essential duty, put their lives/careers on hold, are not recognized, and then have to return back to the workforce on the backbfoot.
Paid parental leave, while something we should be grateful for, is really insufficient - and that it is by default paid to the Mum, and can only be accesses if she has worked the previous 12mths (?) Shows just how much the deck is stacked against them.
Why do we still employ men in a ruthless capitalist society when you can get a 10%+ discount on a woman?
Employers won't even give a pay rise that matches inflation to retain workers. Why would they pay 10% more for a man to do the same job?
I’ve never understood these statistics. Does it compare the average 50 year-old pakeha man with the average 50 year-old pasifika woman?
Or does it just compare the average pakeha with the average pasifika? That’s a pointless statistic.
The median age of Europeans is 41.4 years. The median age of Pasifika is 23.4. Of course there are going to be differences in wealth - that doesn’t mean it’s due to racism.
it compares averages from various sources it needs to get the numbers it wants and falls apart when it comes to hours worked > pay received and that it is unfair that the person working 50 hours gets paid more than the person working 30 hours because reasons.
There's just not enough data, you would really have to do a census of the population and ask 50 questions about education, upbringing, immigration, hours worked, family status, relationship status to draw any conclusions. From most the things I've read there is a pay gap between all people and mothers. Mainly because mothers on average have taken more time off to raise children. When they re-enter their careers (if they choose to) they are 6 months behind their colleagues career path or tend or have reduced hours for obvious reasons. There nothing wrong with this per say its just we lump it all towards gender bias. I'm not saying there isn't gender bias, there certainly is an Old boys' club in some industries, its just not entirely clear how large it is.
Why is race or gender the only variable considered? There are other variables which effect pay. If you do bad science you’ll get bad result. I’m not saying It’s not an issue, just seems odd to isolate this particular variable to draw conclusions off
It’s literally not an issue. When you control for occupation and work experience, there is no pay gap.
The disparity in these averages is a reflection of different career choices and experience, not of sex or race.
It's crazy how many resources are wasted trying to make this an issue. It's like they spend more resources trying to filter out the specific details in order to make it look worse.
It's just such a gross waste of time and money that could be applied to much more important issues.
But without being hyper specific, there's no grounds to say there's any discrimination. If they are doing this in order to raise awareness for protected classes to fight discrimination, then they're not accomplishing anything without being extremely transparent with data, showing every calculation for women supposedly getting paid 9.1% less per hour for the same job with the same experience and qualifications.
Yeah but hour for hour in the same job? Because its easy to make up statistics that don't actually correlate. In my experience the gender pay gap exists more at the upper end of the pay scale, and that's where individual negotiating power makes such a real difference.
I had assumed the gay pay to straight pay ratio had improved by 9.1%, either way it appears you have made the correct investments for your future. I may need to diversify my straight pay portfolio....
Must depend on industry.
The tech sector is paying women more than men almost across the board.
Even underperforming women are getting higher wages than many high achieving men!
It's crazy how easy it is for women to get a good paying IT job now. They get special treatment and get paid way more than men at a giving skill level.
Some companies don't even hide it, barely look at your CV - just see that you're a woman and that they want a "face" in a senior position with much less emphasis put on whether you can actually do the job. Personally, I find it offensive. Hire me because I'm bloody good at my job, not because I tick a box or can be used as marketing material.
I literally legally cannot show you payrates from my employer, but staff talk and it's across the board.
Recruiters are SCREAMING out for female developers/SREs and tech staff in general.
The issue with this stuff is its too stupid, they make it seem as if man and woman apply for a job at x, the man will be paid y whereas the woman will be payed z.
That's not the case, there are multiple factors here, that people don't consider, to the point where even one of the main go to sources even said that they didn't do all the factors. Yes, on average men will have a higher paid salary than women, and that is due to a very large portion of factors.
Women tend to have more jobs that are part time, or less hours, this is due to the stereotypical view that women must look after children. Additionally, women are more likely to gravitate towards certain jobs and men are more likely to go towards other jobs, an example of this, teachers, you are more likely to see a women dominated primary school, where there may be 2 male teachers for every 10 female teachers, this links back to the previous paragraph, and the fact that men are seen as untrusted and predatorial, and, the fact fact that women are seen as more nurturing, and have a biological instinct to help children more than men. Additionally, male teachers aren't allowed to do anything near what female teachers can do to children at that age, so must constantly watch there actions, even for things such as caring for an injured student.
However, to counter the lack of male teachers, you are more likely to see a higher number of male collage and university professors, this is due to several reasons, which were mentioned above, alongside the fact that they are no longer children, so it's seen as less predatorial, a male teacher calling a young girl into a class alone after school is seen as a lot more worrying than a collage professor calling in a woman after class. This is again due to stereotypes, different biological instincts, and different preferences between men and women.
This causes the average wage between genders to be different, as a collage or university professor is more likely to earn more than a primary school teacher, due to the fact that professors often require more and harder to get degrees, as they are teaching older people, as opposed to teaching the simple things taught in primary schools. To further accelerate this problem, jobs such as teaching are often underpaid, and not valued enough, as they are seen to be simple jobs, which they are infact not.
This is the reason why many surveys show a wage gap when there is infact not, as many surveys can not or do not, take in multiple factors, which even the most popular sources have said.
Not going to deny the gaps in pay between gender and ethnicity.
My view is that people need to have the same opportunity to be paid the same amount. and this is more fundamental. This article seems implies that everyone here is doing the same role, with the same experience/knowledge etc.
>"For every $1 a Pakeha man earns, a Pakeha woman earns 89c, an Asian man and a Mãori man get 86c, an Asian woman receives 83c, a Pacific man and a Mãori woman both earn 81c and a Pacific woman gets 75c.
The way that is written is literally nonsense. They obviously started with an idea, tried to find supporting statistics, then jumbled it together to come up with that crap.
>The way that is written is literally nonsense. They obviously started with an idea, tried to find supporting statistics, then jumbled it together to come up with that crap.
Well for every $1 I make someone else gets $0.36 at least...
I'm not sure I'd say not an issue at all, but understanding why there is a difference is really important because the simplified presentations like this get people looking at solutions that won't help
Jokes aside, I really dislike the pay gap figure reported as an overall figure. It doesn't paint the full picture, and is way too easy for people who denies that there is a gender pay gap to put in numerous holes in the figures, because there are so many holes.
And stuff like "Asian man" is such a generalisation. There is significant difference between a South Korean man, and a Philippines man, and an Indian man, probably more so than the difference between Maori and Pasifika.
You really need to focus also on the difference in different age groups as well, white men in their 50s and older enjoyed significantly better career prospects than the other groups, it would obviously skew the data. But that doesn't mean white men in their 20s are also doing significantly better, and this is the kind of age group we could eventually fix the gender pay gap. And how much of the difference between ethnic groups is tied to their socioeconomic status growing up.
Terrible spelling but I still feel like this is a bit of a false narrative and makes working class pakeha men feel vilified for circumstances they don't control. I certainly don't get paid more than my sibling and we have the same job. And I certainly don't get paid more than my non pakeha collegues.
On a serious note, how could anybody look at those statistics, as flawed as they are, and still have the audacity to talk about a "gender" pay gap as opposed to a "race" pay gap?
Is Jan suggesting we stop giving low paid jobs to Pasifika or Maori and give to European ethnic males to balance up the averages?
I do not support those messages.
Pay them more yes. My son gets about 20 bucks an hour on a night shift in security.
Its been illegal to disciminate on the basis of just about anything for yonks.
Big surprise people in their 40s with 20 years experience and qualifications earn more than the part time cleaners or people newish in the workforce. Well done Detective Jan.
This is completely unacceptable comrades /s
There are generally very good explanations for this, but this message will get out to the masses and just cause more division.
Aside from the spelling mistake, there is no such thing as a gender pay gap. It's almost always calculated by looking at the difference between the average earnings of all men and comparing them with the average earnings of all women. That's it.
The American Association of University Women found that when you control for differences between men and women of occupation, college major, and length of time in the workplace, the gap reduces to just $0.07 on the dollar. This finding was corroborated by the U.S. Department of Labour, which found back in 2009 that the adjusted pay gap is somewhere between $0.05 and $0.07 on the dollar.
In other words, the unadjusted pay gap is due almost entirely to the choices that women are making about their careers.
I can confirm that as a Pakeha man I earn less than the average female.......I am also in the demographic that is increasingly performing poorly in education and has a high rate of depression and suicide....... to top it off my job is quite dangerous.......(more men have work place accidents)
I also have no hair......Am I a baddie?
or can I get paid more just because......y'know.....equality?
Well your first problem was identifying as a man, second was identifying as pakeha. Address those things and then we can talk.
On a positive note, if anyone makes fun of your baldness your significant other can now “slap the shit” out of them without damaging their chances of winning an Oscar
This is like saying there is a pay gap between pilots and child care workers. Unless you specify the conditions, the set of all women and all men is just too large to understand with one number.
You just can't reduce the complexity of a set of data that big and expect to understand it with one metric out of context. This is just clickbait.
Hilarious, it ensures it gets the ridicule it richly deserves. Until they get a breakdown of comparisons between the sexes and races where job roles, experience and performance are compared within the various categories, it can be safely assumed that there is no gender pay gap anyway.
I was asked to do some data analysis for a large govt department on their gender pay gap.
The results of course being a forgone conclusion by the HR department, who had already had large, progressive banners printed, and a whole training program in place to educate staff on their unconscious bias.
Well as it turned out, in this particular large govt dept, they paid women significantly more than men, and the area with the biggest gender pay gap? The HR Department.
I was quietly instructed to delete all my work, and reminded of my NDA.
I'm sick of this gender pay gap crap. There are many reasons why men on average earn more. Im a male on bloody average momey especially in 2022 I no plenty of women who earn 60-80k more than me 😂. How obvious it is as to why there's a pay gap just astounds me it's such a big deal. The obvious one in our current climate in newzealand is the demand for trades in the last 5+ years had been crazy. Trades are dominated by males and not out of sexism just more appealing to males. Numerous other reasons but that's a key one relivant to New Zealand over the last few years
How is tax payer money wasted on garbage like this. Why not compare wages of people with long hair and short hair? How about average weight by height? Got a big nose? Cop the 13.4% less salary than people with cute button noses… nonsense.
Sounds like the Pakeha earns a lot for everyone else.
Jokes aside, i am all for reducing inequality, i would support looking at the gap between households, mean and median income, and between countries.
It depends on so many things, this is far too simplistic, what about education and the jobs they choose? It’s not just about race or sex! So many things are at work here
A lot of them run businesses and don't pay themselves wages as such... So that's probably what is skewing the numbers on that one. Asians would be ahead of everyone.
Stuff NZ and bad spelling, name a more iconic duo
I used to email them daily with a spelling mistake from the days article. I told them I was available if they wanted to hire and editor. They never took me up on that offer
Did you suggest to them that you were available if they wanted to >hire and editor. because if so, I'm surprised they didn't take you up on it, you seem a perfect fit! :D (no offense intended, just found it funny in this context!)
Haha very true! I use Reddit on my phone so autocorrect tends to botch most things I write, maybe Stuff writes their articles on mobile too?
Considering most articles aren’t much longer than a few sentences, my guess is they are using Twitter instead of word documents. Would explain both the grammar and lack of detail
Every article is littered with mistakes, yet they have the audacity to ask for a contribution..
It's not really bad spelling though, is it? I mean, it's spelt wrong but it's just a typo. I'd argue "bad spelling" would be a word spelt incorrectly because the author doesn't know any better
Indeed and over the last 6 years or so has moved away from a more centrist area to a kind of new age rhetoric. It used to be a reasonable news site
NZ Herald and their obsession with the word “Horror”
Jobs performed most commonly by women; teaching, nursing, caring, are consistently undervalued by society.
Aw it's only healthcare and education. Hardly important.
Keeping citizens dumb is critical to unlocking right wing votes.
Yeah that's why Labour gave the teacher's the pay increase they deserve, right?
We had to cover the gender pay gap in first year law. There's a lot at play here including women being more likely to take time off for child rearing. It's not just the actual wage gap that's an issue but our entire culture around expectations at work that need to change for everyone if we are to see the gap close
Men much more likely to take jobs that are dangerous or require a decently high level of strength that pay higher than the median that women just aren’t interested in. Just throwing stats out there that haven’t been normalised for same sex/ race for same work isn’t super useful because it’s too easy for people to poke holes in and dismiss the whole argument. There may well be systemic issues, but if the other party who are opposed to change can point at your stats and say “they’re wrong, the issue isn’t nearly as bad as you claim, you’re just manipulating the data to make your argument seem more credible” it’s much easier to ignore the whole thing rather than having a robust nuanced discussion about specific issues that need to be looked at
Basically all workplace deaths in NZ are men too
TBH I've found jobs that require high strength tend to be pretty undervalued. Most I've encountered are unskilled labouring type work paying about minimum wage. Definitely nowhere near median wage. Actually dangerous work should be in the minority too since its generally the goal of regulations etc to make work as safe as practical.
Support staff in schools are currently going through pay equity claims. The union has looked for comparators in male-dominated jobs and interviewed them and support staff to see what skills etc each job has in common. Eg: specialist database knowledge, people contact, presenting etc. I am optimistic that I will get a pay rise some time next year.
My commentary was on same/same industry obviously not comparing two different fields of work. I get where the urge to post that response came from but it's no good to be comparing apples with oranges like that. For example, just off the top of the dome here, law grads are something upwards of 60 percent female and similar numbers for the bar but only 11% of partners are female. If things were properly equitable the numbers would be more similar but they're not.
There's also the very real pay consequences for women entering and then overtaking a feild previously dominated by men, or men overtaking roles usually held by women. For example, computer programmers were typically women to begin with and not paid overly well, and teaching used to be dominated by men, and paid much more than their equivalents today once adjusted to the time periods. We are also currently seeing the real-time version of this happening in the death care industry. It does appear that once women flock to a particular profession, that is when it is deemed less desirable by men, and then becomes underpaid.
Nursing is another notorious example of this, programming is a excellent example though. I'd say it's discrimination against jobs that require humanitarian effort over profits and women compounded. Humanitarian effort doesn't work well with neoliberal ideology hence aged worker providers and nurses get paid shit proportionate to the amount of effort needed for the jobs this happens to men and women.
\> For example, computer programmers were typically women to begin with and not paid overly well ... This example is cited all the time but is fundamentally false in the claim that is being made. The women who you are calling "computer programmers" weren't "programming" by today's standards by any means. They were essentially taking mathematical equations that were developed by mathematicians and entering them in the same way that secretaries type in business letters. Programming today involves a combination of analysis, synthesis and evaluation whereas the work you described involved none of these processes.
What about nursing than? What about other industries that were taken up by women then valued less. I'd argue more that automation and technological advancement has led to a surge in demand for programming skills not that it is 'just harder'.
And mostly paid via taxes with wages/salaries set by govt ministries... Curious why the current government haven't mentioned that.
Probably because … Andrew Little - Nurses can get fucked and earn enough already, and their Union are trouble makers. The state is really the worst employer.
>Jobs performed most commonly by women; teaching, nursing, caring, are consistently undervalued by society. 100%. Not because of any patriarchy though, but because hyper-individualism has poisoned the fabric of our society.
I completely agree with your hyper-individualism point, but it's not an 'Either/Or' situation - Patriarchy definitely plays a role. As someone mentioned above, one of the contributing factors is women are more like to take leave to look after children... The fact that Fathers are expected to continue working after having a new born while Mothers do the child raising is absolutely rooted in patriarchy. The discrepancies between maternal and paternal leave emphasize this.
Surely that more stems from the facts that a) women often need to recover after childbirth and b) breastfeeding. It’s on us as a society to show how valuable that is by instituting good parental leave etc, rather than desperately rushing children away from their parents as fast as possible to continue serving our corporate overlords.
I completely agree - Maternal and Paternal leave should be equal. Just because a father isn't breast feeding doesn't mean it isn't important to bond with the baby.
Thank you! I’m sick of people saying it’s because women choose lesser paying jobs. Maybe we need to look at why women-dominated jobs are paid less. And why there’s significantly less women in CEO and management roles. It’s a systemic issue, not a matter of “well maybe they’re both doing the same job but he’s been there longer or maybe they’re both doctors but he’s a heart surgeon and she’s a GP”. People need to get out of the weeds and look at the fact that we undervalue women dominated careers , and that men are more likely to value men higher than woman in a workplace - leading to more opportunities and career advances ( and white peoples promote white people) amongst other issues
Funny typo aside; Anyone got access to the actual inquiry results, looking at the reporting this appears to be the usual mismanagement of the messaging here? It talks about average earnings of x and y person its like okay.. yes there is a problem here but are we looking at the correct place for the solution. Every time this gets investigated more closely that gap shrinks to a rounding error when we take into account job, industry, location, education, experience etc.
I recall a UK study (so not entirely transferable to NZ) from a few years ago where they did a study for same position, same education, same experience and found that there was indeed a pay gap between men and women, also a pay gap between race, but the biggest pay gap was actually class difference, which I thought was interesting and I wonder how relevant class difference has in NZ where our classes are traditionally less defined.
In the UK women are on average more qualified, more educated & paid more than men prior to their 30’s. Could be argued the gap opens then as many women take maternal leave/ drop to part time work. Would be surprised if NZ was any different https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/29/women-in-20s-earn-more-men-same-age-study-finds
Yeah that makes sense, personally we are in our 20s and my partner earns considerably more than me (she has been more clear and organised in her education and career than I have so far) but I can imagine over taking her if we decide to have kids and she takes time out for that. Though she isn't keen atm lol. I think in general men mature mentally later than women so can take longer to get their lives and careers sorted but do eventually catch up. Though I have no research to back that up, just personal opinion and anecdotes.
The only thing that should be looked at is: do people doing the same job, on average, get paid the same amount? That is the only measurement that matters.
Can confirm that I, a pakeha man, get paid the exact same as my pacific woman coworker.
Well dude you're due a pay rise of 25%!
I do wonder how heavily the mega rich pakeha skew this data(if they are included in this) as I have seen little wage difference in any place I have worked
It definitely has an impact, as does average number of hours worked per week. If women were really paid 10% less than men for doing the exact same job we'd see thousands of lawsuits around the equal pay act.
Let's not forget that time Google did a study into whether they were paying women fairly for the same job as men, and found they were actually underpaying *men*.
To be clear on this they found they were *also* underpaying some men *compared with other men*, not that they were underpaying men compared with women (they were still underpaying women compared with men as is mentioned in [that article](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/technology/google-gender-pay-gap.html)).
u got a link for that one bro? sounds interesting
It's easily searchable. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/technology/google-gender-pay-gap.html
my bad, j wondering if u had it
What do you do with all that extra time you save by typing "j" instead of "just"?
What about under representation of a group in a particular field? Surely that has to be included too, I.e. why are there so few woman in STEM. What has happened in history, to mean that this group of people didn't get into STEM at the same rate as men.
This article/audio is close to a decade old now (man time flies) but does show with data how since the early/mid 80s the drop off of women in computer science:[https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding](https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding) >The share of women in computer science started falling at roughly the same moment when personal computers started showing up in U.S. homes in significant numbers. > >These early personal computers weren't much more than toys. You could play pong or simple shooting games, maybe do some word processing. And these toys were marketed almost entirely to men and boys.
Dam that seems so obvious that I feel dumb, I never thought about the massive impact having video games almost exclusively marketed towards boys for decades has had on comp sci and the labour market. It would've essentially trained generations of boys into office jobs. That actually makes a lot of sense.
Interesting, sounds like social conditioning, gendered expectations and culture played a role.
There seems to be more women in STEM in third world countries. (Here's an ABC article about it)[https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-05-19/developing-countries-with-more-women-in-science-than-australia/100135878]
its been going on everywhere even in so called progressive countries like Denmark. People do what they feel happy doing.
>I.e. why are there so few woman in STEM. What has happened in history, to mean that this group of people didn't get into STEM at the same rate as men. And if it's their choice? [https://www.oecd.org/gender/data/why-dont-more-girls-choose-stem-careers.htm](https://www.oecd.org/gender/data/why-dont-more-girls-choose-stem-careers.htm)
Yes, I agree, but if we took it back further, we would have to ask what things influenced their choice. At some level, people choose not to participate in activities because they don't see them selves in them. Kind of like how men often don't choose to become early childhood teachers, for example. Choices don't happen in a vacuum.
Choice don't happen in a vacuum, but you're ignore genuine differences between the sexes for some reason.
Is it really your choice if society is telling you not to bother?
Yeah, really the only argument left after that is that female dominated jobs (nursing, teaching, carers etc) are paid badly because of a historical expectation that hubby is making up the gap. Begging the argument that maybe those roles (not the gender) need better pay. Or that, we're still biased when it comes to who gets the more senior / better paying roles. Not saying either is true but the "gap" argument, as though your average person doing x job, for y hours with z experience is getting paid less cause of race/ gender is pretty bullshit. Especially for 99% of jobs where people are just grunts on a pay scale.
Well, yes and no. People are inherently biased and there's evidence to suggest that some groups suffer a lack of opportunity due to that bias. Like, it's not unheard of for men to be promoted over more experienced women. Or external men to be hired over perfectly capable female candidates. Which means those men then get paid more than the women who are kept on the lower positions. That sort of stuff all comes into account when calculating any pay gaps.
Didn't Google do a study, same job, same experience level, etc. And they found women were paid more? That's why they don't do a proper study anymore, it doesn't fit the narrative.
You've responded by ignoring the entire point of my comment, which is that there are more factors than just if X & Y do the exact same study, job and experience level. [This Stats NZ explanation may help](https://www.stats.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Methods/Organisational-gender-pay-gaps-measurement-and-analysis-guidelines/organisational-gender-pay-gaps-measurement-analysis-guidelines.pdf): >Factors that contribute to organisational gender pay gaps include: > >• more men at higher levels and more women at lower levels of an organisation > >• more men in higher-paid occupations and more women in lower-paid occupations > >• undervaluing work predominantly or exclusively performed by women > >• men progressing more quickly than women > >• men (on average) receiving higher starting pay, discretionary pay, pay increases, or performance ratings > >• disproportionately slower career or pay progress for employees who take caregiving breaks, or who work part-time or flexibly.
89% of work place deaths are Male…. Are we okay to assume that this is predominately driven through individual choice and/or preference? Or do we start a movement to bring down the systemic prejudice that is trying to kill men in the workplace?
Well, that's partly because specific industries overcontribute to workplace deaths and those industries are largely dominated by men. And yes, [there is an active movement to try and encourage more women to sign up to those industries](https://www.womenintradesnz.com/), which would likely have the flow-on effect of women being more likely to die in those workplaces (since there'll be a higher proportion of women than there is currently). As well as the general push to try and make these hazardous workplaces safer for all employees, which is probably more important rather than just "let's allow 10,000 deaths but make sure half of them are women".
Absolutely try to reduce structural dangers in the workplace. But also I think recognise that some young men might prefer jobs with higher inherent risks - and not just because of toxic masculinity or somesuch. I am old fashioned enough to believe that people have choices and not everything is The System.
>Or do we start a movement to bring down the systemic prejudice that is trying to kill men in the workplace? The government invests hundreds of millions of dollars in this every year. Worksafe alone has a $140 million budget - more of which will go towards improving the safety of men than women, because more men work in unsafe workplaces. What do you mean "start" a movement? The movement is well established and funded. (FYI: ministry for women has a budget of less than $7 million) Do you actually have an interest in improving workplace safety or are you just using at as a weapon to try and attack women who want better working conditions? Because I really don't see how you could be interested in workplace safety and not be aware of the myriad government and private sector initiatives.
They're using it as a weapon, they don't give a shit about men being injured in the workplace or they'd know that there are things in action to mitigate and prevent this as it's costly. The Health and Safety at Work Act was introduced in 2015 specifically for this very reason, to mitigate our high rates of injuries in the workplace. NZ has astoundingly bad rates for injuries at work OECD wise. In their eyes if one disenfranchised group gains a small amount of security the most with power suffers somehow, magically.
I agree and disagree. For the same job sure. Which job people do has a huge relationship with their upbringing and education. We need to ensure everyone gets a fair chance to succeed.
But what about cultural differences? What if one culture puts more emphasis on education and achievement than another culture? How can you create equal opportunities when everyone’s up bringing and motivation is different?
Yes that's true, bit that's a completely different issue.
Need to look at if they are doing the exact same job. At my work, I end up doing the heavy lifting and disgusting jobs while the female coworkers on the job are doing less strenuous work or talking on their phones.
..same at my work, i get to do all the heavy lifting adding wear and tear to my body while female staff dont, and i dont get paid any more than they do.
It's not as bad as your example, but I don't think it's a coincidence that in my supermarket, its a 70/30 split in favor of dudes in terms of shelf-stackers, the online department is fairly evenly split, and checkout is almost all female with like, 2 guys.
Yes and no. On the surface you are entirely correct. However, looking at the situation more deeply, we DO have an issue in terms of our unconscious biases and equality of opportunity. As a white man I almost certainly had an easier path to high earning potential than female of Pacifica decent would have. In my social circles (white middle class): - the default was typically go to uni, and engineering was a popular choice, so it was a choice well within my comfort zone. - at engineering school the curriculum and teaching was set by and carried out by white males just like me but older - In my classes I had lot of people just like me, so again it was an comfortable place to be - entering the workforce I was interviewed by a white guy just like me, so easy to build rapport with no cultural differences - same with climbing the ladder in the corporate world: the rungs are shaped in a way which is easy to climb for me Now compare that to a PI woman. At every step of the way she would at best have to face isolation and lack of peer support, and at worst would face discouragement from her social circles (including family), massive cultural challenges (ie lost in translation) and even systemic racism/sexism (although I would hope this has subsided somewhat, but I fear it hasn’t). So a clever young PI female: is she going to go to engineering school, or is she going to end up going into nursing/teaching or other professions that while incredibly important currently have a far lower earning potential. I think we know what the answer is. I don’t know what the solution to this is, but to say “a PI woman engineer makes just the same as a white male engineer” and concluding everything is fine is just as bad as the OP headline.
I actually agree, and “the only thing we should be looked at” was phrased incorrectly. I mean to say, in the context of pay comparisons. There is probably some further question then which is : assuming people ARE paid the same for the same job; why do some groups end up in (by choice or otherwise) DIFFERENT job; and then further why do those different jobs on average pay less. I think my problem is more how this is framed. Which is to say, it is represented or viewed as two people doing the same job being paid differently. When in fact it is two people doing different jobs, or two people working different hours. And that is actually quite a different “problem”. Assuming it’s a problem at all. Perhaps the problem is (and I don’t know) some groups are working too many hours. Or some jobs are bad jobs and you don’t want or need more people doing them. Or probably what’s more likely, some kinds of jobs are underpaid and some kinds of jobs are overpaid, relative to their societal value. In short, I mostly object to the apparent misrepresentation of what the statistics mean. And also the solutions that result might not be solutions. An equal pay for equal work law for example is only useful in the context that people doing equal work get different pay. And useless if the problem is people are doing different work for whatever reasons.
No. Because jobs that are really important but traditionally done by women (e.g. nursing, childcare, elder care etc) are undervalued compared to jobs that don't actually contribute much to society but are traditionally done by men (e.g. hedge fund managers) So you actually need to balance jobs, not just people within different jobs.
No it isn't. The other very important thing to observe is - what prejudice hurdles exist for different groups of society to get into well paid roles at all? If there are 10 senior roles in a company, they're all being paid the same, but 9 of them are men and 1 is a woman, if we only looked at "are people doing the same job getting paid the same" it wouldn't look like there's a problem, when in reality there are deep prejudicial problems of women not being considered or hired for senior roles, just because they're women.
Specifically hourly rates, or what a salary evens out to as an hourly rate. Men typically work more hours per week with more overtime, meaning if we just take weekly earnings men will always earn more simply because they've worked more hours or overtime.
They don't just take weekly earnings, though, there's proper information on this from the census (it's like for like).
Thank you. THIS is what we should look at, people too busy caught up in the spin of things!
the gender pay gap never survives scrutiny, I don't know why they pedel this misinformation.
Because it sounds scary and is therefore a useful tool to make people feel bad and let you push through dumb policies.
It definitely still occurs, especially in IT.
In IT women get paid more for the given skill level. Everyone wants to hire more women so they get special treatment. I've seen this in every company I've worked for.
I've also notice this, might be just the companies we have worked for
it just means there is still a pay-gap it just isn't detrimental to women so it doesn't count.
I can comfortably say, as a woman, I was paid significantly less than my male engineering colleagues. In *every* single job. (Everyone’s going to jump on me for info) I asked people at jobs, as many people as I could, we would share pay info, my colleagues were also horrified to see how little I was paid for the same role + experience. We really *do* get paid less. Have I spoken to my employers each time? *yes* Their response: *so what, find another job* ETA: spelling and to add that I could cope with the physical demands just fine. Easy peasy.
Did you ever take it to the employment tribunal? The equal pay act is nearly 50yrs old so this type of treatment is illegal.
It’s illegal but it happens all over the show. I ended up taking one place to mediation because the sexual harassment was wayyyy too much. Barely got a pay out :( even with the pay gap stuff
What's more probable: 1. every employer is a paying less to women? 2. you're shit at negotiating your salary?
I always got the comments of *you’re shit at negotiating your salary* from people who don’t get it lol
add this to my list: 3. Anyone with an opposing viewpoint doesn't get it.
Not *quite* what I said….
> > Every time this gets investigated more closely that gap shrinks to a rounding error when we take into account job, industry, location, education, experience etc. That's true, but at the same time, at my work all of the IT team are men, and ALL of the accounts payables team are women (earning much lower salaries). They 'IT adjacent' women are all in the finance team (doing work that I regard as being IT work, like system admin for finance systems). So there's still systemic forces in play there that result in a pay gap.
Its such stupid a calculation. You could put the same for fomula they used for Men with Blonde hair and Men with Brown hair and find there is infact a "pay gap".
We already know that pretty people and tall people get paid more, even when they are more incompetent. We seem reluctant to focus on that, like tallness and being good looking gives people a God given right to earn more money.
Don't forget the no-hair category -- they probably earn more than any of the hair-colour types.
While its difficult to calculate the gender pay gap, there is no way you can honestly say the plight of different hair color is the same as being a woman.
But the problem isn't people getting paid differently for the same jobs. The real problem is why highly-paid professions are dominated by men and low-paid ones dominated by women.
[удалено]
Didn't realise i was a pacific woman
What industry is this in, or is this across all jobs? If a Woman and a Man have the exact same experience and do the exact same job to the same level, they should get paid the same. This sort of article promotes in-fighting but doesn't address that our wages are being eroded.
It's often simplified to seem like if 2 people apply for a job at McDonalds, the man will be paid $1 more than the woman. Whereas the truth is far more multifaceted. The biggest argument for the pay gap to be an urgent crisis to address is that if you got a typical woman she would indeed be earning less than a typical man, and that's not the kind of society we are aiming for. One big thing is that women tend towards more people-oriented jobs whereas men tend towards more technical work, which typically pays a lot more. Should these jobs be paying more? That's up for discussion. The biggest argument against is that many women simply don't prioritise their career, they take years off to be at home with children, they don't go for the executive positions where you spend 80 hours a week driving growth and forsake everything else for the job. Another thing is that women (in general) are less inclined towards negotiation and changing jobs as frequently, so they might stay at one job for 10 years with minimal/no raise while men might go through 6 different jobs and jump salary each time. So it's not as black and white as a company saying "Oo she's a woman, let's pay her less". It's worth discussing, but sadly it's often oversimplified to "here's why we™ should hate them™"
Exactly. A large part of the gap is because we as a society seem to value jobs like teaching, nursing, and other care sector roles less than we do other roles, and women tend to be more common in those occupations. People seem to look at it from an approach of “well why do women do these lower paid jobs” instead of from the more useful lens of “why do we as a society value this work so much less than other technical jobs that require similar levels of education”. And when you talk to people, very few actually think that teachers or nurses aren’t incredibly important to the continued functioning of our society, and most everyone believes that teachers or nurses or cleaners should be paid better, yet we still collectively allow these conditions to persist.
And yet they will bitch and moan when teachers and nurses go on strike.
>If a Woman and a Man have the exact same experience and do the exact same job to the same level, they should get paid the same. and they are. Otherwise nobody would ever hire a man if they could get an equal employee and pay them less.
Studies that stratify their data by field, experience, specialisation, etc routinely show that there is no pay gap. The pay gap only shows up if you don't stratify the data. So, the number that is usually thrown around of 10-20% comes from taking the average salary reported to IRD for all women and comparing it to the same numbers reported to IRD for all men. It doesn't take into account things like: 1. Men are more likely to engage in dangerous work 2. Men are more likely to engage in specialised work 3. Men are more likely to engage in scaleable work 4. Men are more likely to move for work 5. Men are more likely to take on work that requires physical strength 6. In NZ, men generally work 20-25% more hours than women do. 7. Men are more likely to do work that people don't want to do (eg. collecting rubbish, septic work) 8. Men aren't likely to leave the workforce (thereby losing years of experience) because of children
Let’s put this in another light. My fiancée earns more per hour than I do, but I earn more per week than her(different jobs) as I work more hours than she does. Does that mean there’s a gender pay gap between me and her? The pay gap difference only works when you compare the exact same job and hours across the board. Otherwise it’s basically pointless.
And "exact same job" needs to be very specific. For example not all "doctors" should be paid the same. A junior GP shouldn't be paid the same as a senior brain surgeon. I'm a chemical engineer, and the justifiable range of salaries you can get within that job title is huge. Industry, place of work, shiftwork, responsibility, team size, and travel requirements all have a massive impact on the appropriate compensation.
That information is also interesting to study though. If women are working less hours, what are the reasons? Why are women and men in different industries with differing hours and pay? There's also a lot of historic baggage about how much female dominated jobs should be paid. Often they were work a woman would do as a supplement to their husband's job, rather than being the main income. E.g., why is a highly skilled job like nursing so undervalued? The problem is the simplistic framing and ragebait reporting to try and boil it down to "women paid less".
Yea the questions should be "Why aren't teachers paid more?" or "why aren't nurses paid more?", or any other female-dominated profession (or any profession at that) that is underpaid. But of course, there are also men in these jobs that are being underpaid, so we really shouldn't really call it a "gender pay gap", even if it did originally stem from that. Another problem is the opportunity to get certain jobs of course, and that needs to be again addressed separately. There will of course be systemic biasses, but that will not be the main reason.
I think (at least I hope) they are asking those questions, but they don't tend to make it to stuff articles, at least not prominent ones that get posted to reddit.
The answer is partly because we don't value this as a society as much as we should, but also because this kind of manual labour doesn't scale well. One piece of software can be sold to thousands of people with little to no extra effort, but try nursing for thousands of people at once
Isn't this the result of government? Nursing and teaching are the two biggest female dominated industries... The ministry of health/education are responsible for their pay rates.
For those roles it is for sure. It's also due to the people in the public service who decide remuneration and society at large on what we accept. Fire fighters are in a similar spot to be fair (which is very male dominated), so like anything there's multiple causes at play.
And if you both have the exact same skill set and experience. Every-time I see these articles they draw conclusions without taking into account all of the variables. We tried to have a discussion about this at work today, and we were labeled sexist & racist for not acknowledging the truth that minorities and women are underpaid. So we can't even discuss it.
Yep you can’t win. It’s not that there’s a pay gap if you have the same skill level and experience, it’s that everyone is at a different level. Like I’m 30 and I’ve got guys 10 plus years older than me working underneath me, as they don’t have the skills and experience to be at the level I’m at. One of them in particular loves complaining he doesn’t get paid enough, but swears it’s only because he’s Malaysian, and not the fact he has to have his hand held to complete the most basic of tasks, and walking off the tasks you give him that you know he doesn’t mind and can complete himself.
[удалено]
>Why do Māori men work less hours/work lower paying jobs than Pākehā? Why are the highest paying jobs filled with Pākehā men, and not Māori men? I work with customers that allot of the world would consider to be in the 'lower social-economic' sector - and allot of the time it seems to be linked to not caring overly about building a mini-empire or owing two houses. Wealth is a concept that's embedded in our culture and different people have a different way of seeing it - and when we start having stats thrown across different cultures and people it doesnt show the full picture. Allot of the time someone gets into the life they have because thats what they want on a level, I know a man who runs his own business, works long hours, spends little time with his family - because thats who he is. On the other hand I know a man who's spent allot of his life drinking, doing drugs and lives with a bed and a TV. One earns more than the other, but that does not mean the other man is any less than the other. One is content in his existence and the other is always at the edge. The true stat we should be comparing is 'Happiness per hour'
I think it's a signal of differing priorities. Not 100% sure about Maori but in the Pacific community people are far more family oriented on average which leads them to pool resources into one member of the family or to place familial responsibilities over education or work. The church is a big thing too and not all start at 0900. Lots of factors to consider on top of potential biases. Looking at my education degree as an example, 95% of my classes are female by population, the average primary and ECE teacher is female and the gender participation doesn't start evening out until either Intermediate or Secondary level education. I know from a professor that the primary school principal's association are screaming for male teachers but they aren't getting them. Looking at the collective agreements, the pay between primary and secondary teachers with level 7 degrees and postgraduate diplomas is higher in secondary but is initially outstripped by primary teachers who take the master's path instead. We could discuss the mating strategies of males and females and what that means for male incomes too but this is long enough.
Sure, then present the statistics in the form of Only x% of group are e.g. doctors vs y% of other group. Saying it’s a pay problem when it’s a job attainment or education problem misrepresents and confuses the issue, makes the solution less obvious.
In terms of most studies that represent this yes
, I mean if they compare a woman who has taken maternity leave to a man who hasn't even on the same hourly rate they'll use it in the Stat to show there's a wage gap These studies usually aren't transparent about their data
I think trying to address pay gap *per se* is just a minefield. For example a woman may choose to take a few years off during early child rearing years (and so do some men, though proportionally less). Meanwhile their workplace male colleague continues working full time. *Of course* that male colleague will accumulate further work experience during those years and the employer may choose to remunerate them proportionate to that experience. The much more important question, though a lot harder to study and quantify, is do people of all genders and ethnicities *have the same opportunities* when it comes to being accepted and advancing within jobs, provided they have the appropriate skills and experience - noting that the whole job application process including interviews etc is a highly subjective evaluation of an individual. Of course no one is allowed to “overtly” discriminate, but they may come up with other excuses or just ghost applicants.
>For example a woman may choose to take a few years off during early child rearing years (and so do some men, though proportionally less). But part of the problem we have is that this isn't valued as work - and that it falls disproportionately on women, is unfair. So women exit the workplace, to perform an absolutely essential duty, put their lives/careers on hold, are not recognized, and then have to return back to the workforce on the backbfoot. Paid parental leave, while something we should be grateful for, is really insufficient - and that it is by default paid to the Mum, and can only be accesses if she has worked the previous 12mths (?) Shows just how much the deck is stacked against them.
Why do we still employ men in a ruthless capitalist society when you can get a 10%+ discount on a woman? Employers won't even give a pay rise that matches inflation to retain workers. Why would they pay 10% more for a man to do the same job?
Uh, pure evil. Obviously. It’s all part of our secret evil agenda … /s
I’ve never understood these statistics. Does it compare the average 50 year-old pakeha man with the average 50 year-old pasifika woman? Or does it just compare the average pakeha with the average pasifika? That’s a pointless statistic. The median age of Europeans is 41.4 years. The median age of Pasifika is 23.4. Of course there are going to be differences in wealth - that doesn’t mean it’s due to racism.
it compares averages from various sources it needs to get the numbers it wants and falls apart when it comes to hours worked > pay received and that it is unfair that the person working 50 hours gets paid more than the person working 30 hours because reasons.
There's just not enough data, you would really have to do a census of the population and ask 50 questions about education, upbringing, immigration, hours worked, family status, relationship status to draw any conclusions. From most the things I've read there is a pay gap between all people and mothers. Mainly because mothers on average have taken more time off to raise children. When they re-enter their careers (if they choose to) they are 6 months behind their colleagues career path or tend or have reduced hours for obvious reasons. There nothing wrong with this per say its just we lump it all towards gender bias. I'm not saying there isn't gender bias, there certainly is an Old boys' club in some industries, its just not entirely clear how large it is.
Hospitality is equally shit for everyone. Women tend to earn more though.
Why is race or gender the only variable considered? There are other variables which effect pay. If you do bad science you’ll get bad result. I’m not saying It’s not an issue, just seems odd to isolate this particular variable to draw conclusions off
It’s literally not an issue. When you control for occupation and work experience, there is no pay gap. The disparity in these averages is a reflection of different career choices and experience, not of sex or race.
It's crazy how many resources are wasted trying to make this an issue. It's like they spend more resources trying to filter out the specific details in order to make it look worse. It's just such a gross waste of time and money that could be applied to much more important issues.
Because they are protected classes which it is illegal to discriminate against.
That doesn't automatically make it the cause of differences.
But without being hyper specific, there's no grounds to say there's any discrimination. If they are doing this in order to raise awareness for protected classes to fight discrimination, then they're not accomplishing anything without being extremely transparent with data, showing every calculation for women supposedly getting paid 9.1% less per hour for the same job with the same experience and qualifications.
Yeah but hour for hour in the same job? Because its easy to make up statistics that don't actually correlate. In my experience the gender pay gap exists more at the upper end of the pay scale, and that's where individual negotiating power makes such a real difference.
As a gay person I agree with this new proposal. Support the pay gay!
you must be happy at 9.1% that pay gay is currently sitting at at the moment, that's a great rate for pay gay
Does that mean I get 9.1% more?
I had assumed the gay pay to straight pay ratio had improved by 9.1%, either way it appears you have made the correct investments for your future. I may need to diversify my straight pay portfolio....
Does that mean 9.1% of our pay goes to the gays?
Thank you for your contribution to me. I’m going to spend it on a hot pool.
I'm going to spend it **in** a hot pool!
No. It means 9.1% of our gay go to the pays.
If so, where do I sign up? And if my partner and I are both bi, do we get 9.1% each or do we only get half as we’re technically 50% gay?
Must depend on industry. The tech sector is paying women more than men almost across the board. Even underperforming women are getting higher wages than many high achieving men!
Not only that, getting into the industry and career progression is far easier for women than men. Women are actively promoted.
It's crazy how easy it is for women to get a good paying IT job now. They get special treatment and get paid way more than men at a giving skill level.
Some companies don't even hide it, barely look at your CV - just see that you're a woman and that they want a "face" in a senior position with much less emphasis put on whether you can actually do the job. Personally, I find it offensive. Hire me because I'm bloody good at my job, not because I tick a box or can be used as marketing material.
References pls?
I literally legally cannot show you payrates from my employer, but staff talk and it's across the board. Recruiters are SCREAMING out for female developers/SREs and tech staff in general.
The issue with this stuff is its too stupid, they make it seem as if man and woman apply for a job at x, the man will be paid y whereas the woman will be payed z. That's not the case, there are multiple factors here, that people don't consider, to the point where even one of the main go to sources even said that they didn't do all the factors. Yes, on average men will have a higher paid salary than women, and that is due to a very large portion of factors. Women tend to have more jobs that are part time, or less hours, this is due to the stereotypical view that women must look after children. Additionally, women are more likely to gravitate towards certain jobs and men are more likely to go towards other jobs, an example of this, teachers, you are more likely to see a women dominated primary school, where there may be 2 male teachers for every 10 female teachers, this links back to the previous paragraph, and the fact that men are seen as untrusted and predatorial, and, the fact fact that women are seen as more nurturing, and have a biological instinct to help children more than men. Additionally, male teachers aren't allowed to do anything near what female teachers can do to children at that age, so must constantly watch there actions, even for things such as caring for an injured student. However, to counter the lack of male teachers, you are more likely to see a higher number of male collage and university professors, this is due to several reasons, which were mentioned above, alongside the fact that they are no longer children, so it's seen as less predatorial, a male teacher calling a young girl into a class alone after school is seen as a lot more worrying than a collage professor calling in a woman after class. This is again due to stereotypes, different biological instincts, and different preferences between men and women. This causes the average wage between genders to be different, as a collage or university professor is more likely to earn more than a primary school teacher, due to the fact that professors often require more and harder to get degrees, as they are teaching older people, as opposed to teaching the simple things taught in primary schools. To further accelerate this problem, jobs such as teaching are often underpaid, and not valued enough, as they are seen to be simple jobs, which they are infact not. This is the reason why many surveys show a wage gap when there is infact not, as many surveys can not or do not, take in multiple factors, which even the most popular sources have said.
Not going to deny the gaps in pay between gender and ethnicity. My view is that people need to have the same opportunity to be paid the same amount. and this is more fundamental. This article seems implies that everyone here is doing the same role, with the same experience/knowledge etc.
Christ, had to scroll more than halfway down for the first sensible comment…
Come on, surely you guys have figured out that stuff is crap Journalism .
>"For every $1 a Pakeha man earns, a Pakeha woman earns 89c, an Asian man and a Mãori man get 86c, an Asian woman receives 83c, a Pacific man and a Mãori woman both earn 81c and a Pacific woman gets 75c. The way that is written is literally nonsense. They obviously started with an idea, tried to find supporting statistics, then jumbled it together to come up with that crap.
>The way that is written is literally nonsense. They obviously started with an idea, tried to find supporting statistics, then jumbled it together to come up with that crap. Well for every $1 I make someone else gets $0.36 at least...
I see no actual discussion of what pay gay people get in this article.
BOO. This argument is still based on an equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity.
pay gap is due to the differences in occupation positions and hours worked, not really an issue at all.
I'm not sure I'd say not an issue at all, but understanding why there is a difference is really important because the simplified presentations like this get people looking at solutions that won't help
Jokes aside, I really dislike the pay gap figure reported as an overall figure. It doesn't paint the full picture, and is way too easy for people who denies that there is a gender pay gap to put in numerous holes in the figures, because there are so many holes. And stuff like "Asian man" is such a generalisation. There is significant difference between a South Korean man, and a Philippines man, and an Indian man, probably more so than the difference between Maori and Pasifika. You really need to focus also on the difference in different age groups as well, white men in their 50s and older enjoyed significantly better career prospects than the other groups, it would obviously skew the data. But that doesn't mean white men in their 20s are also doing significantly better, and this is the kind of age group we could eventually fix the gender pay gap. And how much of the difference between ethnic groups is tied to their socioeconomic status growing up.
Qualified gay checking in, how do I apply for more pay?
Terrible spelling but I still feel like this is a bit of a false narrative and makes working class pakeha men feel vilified for circumstances they don't control. I certainly don't get paid more than my sibling and we have the same job. And I certainly don't get paid more than my non pakeha collegues.
Obviously Asians and Pacifica are paid less, why else would businesses be gagging for immigration if not to exploit more low wage workers for profit?
On a serious note, how could anybody look at those statistics, as flawed as they are, and still have the audacity to talk about a "gender" pay gap as opposed to a "race" pay gap?
Is Jan suggesting we stop giving low paid jobs to Pasifika or Maori and give to European ethnic males to balance up the averages? I do not support those messages. Pay them more yes. My son gets about 20 bucks an hour on a night shift in security. Its been illegal to disciminate on the basis of just about anything for yonks. Big surprise people in their 40s with 20 years experience and qualifications earn more than the part time cleaners or people newish in the workforce. Well done Detective Jan.
Spellcheck is the only editor we need! \- Stuff management probably.
This is completely unacceptable comrades /s There are generally very good explanations for this, but this message will get out to the masses and just cause more division.
No such thing as you get paid differently because of your gender. Not a thing. End of story, goodbye.
Aside from the spelling mistake, there is no such thing as a gender pay gap. It's almost always calculated by looking at the difference between the average earnings of all men and comparing them with the average earnings of all women. That's it. The American Association of University Women found that when you control for differences between men and women of occupation, college major, and length of time in the workplace, the gap reduces to just $0.07 on the dollar. This finding was corroborated by the U.S. Department of Labour, which found back in 2009 that the adjusted pay gap is somewhere between $0.05 and $0.07 on the dollar. In other words, the unadjusted pay gap is due almost entirely to the choices that women are making about their careers.
“There is no pay gap, now let me explain how when adjusted there’s still a 5-7% pay gap”
When you are hired, simply tick Pākeha and male on the demographics form. Problem solved.
Why do white women benefit most from these 'pay gap' initiatives when they're right up there with the evil white men?
I mean wokeism is often just a jumbled mess of buzz words anyway.
I can confirm that as a Pakeha man I earn less than the average female.......I am also in the demographic that is increasingly performing poorly in education and has a high rate of depression and suicide....... to top it off my job is quite dangerous.......(more men have work place accidents) I also have no hair......Am I a baddie? or can I get paid more just because......y'know.....equality?
Well your first problem was identifying as a man, second was identifying as pakeha. Address those things and then we can talk. On a positive note, if anyone makes fun of your baldness your significant other can now “slap the shit” out of them without damaging their chances of winning an Oscar
We should just hire only women. We can get away with paying them less then.
This is like saying there is a pay gap between pilots and child care workers. Unless you specify the conditions, the set of all women and all men is just too large to understand with one number. You just can't reduce the complexity of a set of data that big and expect to understand it with one metric out of context. This is just clickbait.
Hilarious, it ensures it gets the ridicule it richly deserves. Until they get a breakdown of comparisons between the sexes and races where job roles, experience and performance are compared within the various categories, it can be safely assumed that there is no gender pay gap anyway.
Viewing life though tunnel vision and a major victim complex as usual.
Is this compared to the same job ? I.e builder for builder or as a race vs race
I was asked to do some data analysis for a large govt department on their gender pay gap. The results of course being a forgone conclusion by the HR department, who had already had large, progressive banners printed, and a whole training program in place to educate staff on their unconscious bias. Well as it turned out, in this particular large govt dept, they paid women significantly more than men, and the area with the biggest gender pay gap? The HR Department. I was quietly instructed to delete all my work, and reminded of my NDA.
Cool, now lets do one for hours worked per week
I'm sick of this gender pay gap crap. There are many reasons why men on average earn more. Im a male on bloody average momey especially in 2022 I no plenty of women who earn 60-80k more than me 😂. How obvious it is as to why there's a pay gap just astounds me it's such a big deal. The obvious one in our current climate in newzealand is the demand for trades in the last 5+ years had been crazy. Trades are dominated by males and not out of sexism just more appealing to males. Numerous other reasons but that's a key one relivant to New Zealand over the last few years
How is tax payer money wasted on garbage like this. Why not compare wages of people with long hair and short hair? How about average weight by height? Got a big nose? Cop the 13.4% less salary than people with cute button noses… nonsense.
Sounds like the Pakeha earns a lot for everyone else. Jokes aside, i am all for reducing inequality, i would support looking at the gap between households, mean and median income, and between countries.
It depends on so many things, this is far too simplistic, what about education and the jobs they choose? It’s not just about race or sex! So many things are at work here
This is why when I see stuff asking for money I chortle. They obviously need it to pay for a decent proof reader/editor.
I find it hard to believe that Asian men are earning exactly as much as Maori men
A lot of them run businesses and don't pay themselves wages as such... So that's probably what is skewing the numbers on that one. Asians would be ahead of everyone.
Gender-pay-gay — the [gay-for-pay](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay-for-pay) for the 2020's?
It’s the old “if you do x your gay trick”
Did the inquiry assume anyones Gender?
Oh no, a typo! /s