As of today, New Zealand women are effectively working for free until the end of the year because of the 8.2% gender pay gap.
Based on that gap, the average Kiwi woman is paid 336 days for the equivalent of 366 days for men, according to the Ministry for Women.
The way they calculate it is so simplistic…
Pay for males – Pay for females ___________________________________ x 100 Pay for malesIt doesn’t take into account what kind of job the person is doing, where they are working, in which industry, work experience, etc. Just median hourly pay across everything with no nuance.
It’s like comparing a newbie and a senior by median pay and claiming they should be paid the same because they are human.
I feel like the simplistic representation is the right one here.
Women are earning less on average due to a multitude of reasons. Some are an issue, some are not. Who is to decide which reasons should be accounted for in this percentage and which ones shouldn’t?
I have seen plenty of statistics where they calculate the percentage down to the immediate difference between men and women in exactly the same positions with exactly the same experience levels. But that removes the very crucial fact that some positions simply aren’t equally accessible to women, even if the ones who make it in do get a fair pay compared to their male peers.
It’s like comparing a newbie and a senior by median pay and claiming they should be paid the same because they are human.
I’m not going to engage in the typical internet “Oh so you’re saying …!” thing, but damn, read that sentence again and think about why it might not apply to this situation.
I feel like the simplistic representation is the right one here.
Life isn’t simple nor is this issue. Nearly anything can be misrepresented if boiled down a simplistic view. For example “foreigners aren’t from here, so they don’t belong here” is a simplistic take with a simplistic conclusion which is able to galvanise a good portion of society.
For example “foreigners aren’t from here, so they don’t belong here” is a simplistic take with a simplistic conclusion which is able to galvanise a good portion of society.
This isn’t even a strawman, it’s like an entire fucking straw city.
Is it really that difficult to understand an example of a bad simplistic take to drive home the fact that simplistic representations aren’t good?
It can be for people who only want to see their opinions reinforced
lmao what
English, do you speak it?
Dude you’re cooked haha
I’m not in a mood to explain, have this picture of my pet snake being a cute cinnamon roll instead
At this point its just stupid to call it a “pay” gap. There hasnt been a statistically relevant pay gap in western countries with gender equality laws for a long time. What does exist is discrimination and a hiring/promotion gap. Proponents of the term “pay gap” are just shooting themselves in the foot by refusing to actually name the thing that they are fighting for.
The issue is deeper too. As mentioned in another comment, [women are often found in jobs that have low pay to start with (https://www.women.govt.nz/women-and-work/occupational-segregation), regardless of sex. One has to find out why that happens as well as why those jobs are paid so badly. “Because women” is not an explanation as the “solution” could either be “fire all women” or “hire more men”, but that’s barely an attempt at analysing nor solving the issue.
There hasnt been a statistically relevant pay gap in western countries with gender equality laws for a long time.
lol, miss me with this bullshit
It’s like comparing a newbie and a senior by median pay and claiming they should be paid the same because they are human.
No. Male VS Female is the entire population. A newbie vs a senior is the smallest most biased possible way to compare.
I personally think it’s hilarious that you decided that “senior vs junior” is the best way to exemplify gender gap.
The article might be simple, but you’re example is plain bad.
Replace junior and senior by “less experienced” and “more experienced” if you like. The example is to show that apples aren’t being compared to apples.
Is this a troll comment? Or are you really this thick?
If you really can’t understand a simple simile, I question who you’re calling “thick”.
Do you even know how big a number they are dealing with? If the assumpion of equal capability is valid (and it’s a SMALL if), you should always get a much smaller gap.
There are lots of reasons the gap might exist that have nothing to do with capability
In a merocratycal just society? I don’t think there should be.
That’s a common way of looking at it.
My buddy who works in a snowy mining camp in absolutely remote Yukon on a 4wk/2wk shift - but after 3 days of air travel down to his house its more like 1wk off - says they jave a lot of open roles to fill out there but no women.
The pay is awesome.
The p value of women just randomly deciding to all work low paid jobs is <.001
Which doesn’t say anything. Nobody throws a dart at the board and picks a job that way. It is undeniable that women are often found in jobs like healthcare, retail and education (source). One could have the simplistic take of “just get another job, duh”, but a lot goes into career-path decisions from upbringing, to social perception, and opportunity. Things aren’t just that simple, so taking such a simplistic formula to draw up a complicated plan is the wrong way to go about it.
So you’re saying the simple formula actually measures the complex factors of upbringing, social perception, and opportunity.
You’re right! This figure represents a serious inequality in the upbringing, social perception, and opportunities presented to women. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
“So you’re saying” followed by nothing of what I said.
I feel like I’m on twitter… If you like replacing other peoples words with your own, just have the discussion in your head. It’ll save us all a bunch of time.
Okay, so you’re not saying that women’s career paths are determined by inequality of upbringing, social perception, and opportunity. Drag is trying to understand. Can you explain what you actually meant to say, and whether you agree with the statement even if you didn’t mean it?
This is such a divisive way to frame it. But no women aren’t effectively working for free until the end of the year. You are not working for free because someone else gets paid more.
This article and the few others i’ve seen present this as doom and gloom but I think its good news. An 8% gender pay gap is one of the lowest in the world. Judging by the trends it looks like that will be completely closed in a few years as female wage growth is outpacing male.
Its mainly comes down to the average wages in different industries and if we paid teachers a decent wage it could close the gap immediately.
Since when have minimum wage workers working for free?
I start effectivity working for free in early January when you compare my pay to the CEO’s pay.
13 yo take. The point is that if a woman was born a man she’d be getting paid 8.2% more.
Yes, this includes everything tied with being a woman. It’s “priced in”.
Great time to hire women
