English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

7 answers

My company. Every job in my company is paid based strictly on merit, regardless of gender, or whatever. Not only would it be unethical, it would hurt my business to do otherwise.

I happen to employ about the same number of men and women in a highly competitive industry in a job market with virtually zero unemployment.

Thus, I (and my competitors) are motivated by competitive pressure and business ethics to hire and retain the best possible talent, male/female/black/white/Latino/Middle Eastern/Indian/whatever.

We would be cutting our own throats if we were to discriminate against anyone.

2007-10-18 16:02:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6 0

Most studies don't include part-time workers' earnings in the calculation of the earnings gender gap. When these are included the gender gap increases dramatically, because most part-time workers are women and because part-time work tends to pay less well than the otherwise equivalent but full-time positions. The existing numbers on the gender gap underestimate the actual earnings differences between the sexes.

Fringe benefits, things like retirement benefits and health insurance, are usually also omitted from the gender gap calculations. These benefits tend to go up with earnings, though, so it's fairly safe to argue that if they affect the size of the gender gap it will be in the direction of making the gap bigger.

The gender gap is found all over the world but its size varies greatly from the smallest gap of 0.9 (meaning that women earn 90% of what men earn, on average) in countries such as Sweden and Australia to as large a gap as 0.4 in Russia. That the gender gap is not the same size in all countries means that it is at least partly affected by the laws and labor market customs of the countries. It is not some sort of a Biblical constant that cannot be altered, in other words. This is also reflected in the fact that the gender gap changes over time. In the United States, for example, the gap narrowed from the 1960s to the 1980s and then slightly widened during the 1990s. The gap can narrow not only when women's earnings rise but also when men's earnings fall, and at least some of the narrowing in the U.S. has been due to the worsening of men's earnings in blue-collar occupations which have been especially hit by newer production methods using less workers and the outsourcing of the labor the developing countries.

How does this read so far? Academic and technical and not fun, but I can't really write it much better. I know too much, sadly.

Before I tackle the theories themselves, a few more words on the definition of the gender gap: Note that the earnings concept that is used is the gross pay of workers. This means that it depends not only on how much the worker is paid per hour or per week or per month but also on how many hours, weeks or months the worker is toiling at the job. The reason why the gender gap is usually measured only for full-time workers is that doing this controls for differences in how much people work as a reason for income differences. The control is not complete, as some full-time workers work more hours than others. But the studies I discuss in the next part take this into account by adjusting the gender gap measure to reflect actual reported working hours. The rest of this first part assumes that we have taken into account the variation in hours worked so that the gender gap can be viewed purely as a measure of higher wages or salaries for men than for women.

Note also that the gender gap is calculated across all jobs. Men and women often work very different types of jobs. This is called labor market segregation, and it may be voluntary (chosen by the workers) or it may be involuntary (chosen by the firms through steering workers to certain jobs). What this segregation means is that we may be comparing the earnings of men and women in quite different occupations. Luckily, it turns out that the empirical methods we use can control for at least some of these differences.

2007-10-18 22:56:18 · answer #2 · answered by The Ms. 4 · 3 1

In the Military, everyone gets paid the same, based on rank, time in service, and special assignment. All you have to do is know those three things, and you can look at a pay scale and know exactly how much they make. There are variations, however, on money provided for housing, based on where they are living at the moment, but there is a payscale for that too. We are talking 100% unbiased same across the board pay for everyone.

2007-10-18 23:00:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5 0

I wish I knew....in every job I've ever had in any country, any type, any time, the males have always been paid more. It's so depressing...!
I would imagine that jobs with strict pay guidelines such as Military or Police etc would have much more similar wages than private companies.
I earn 10 times less than a male colleague for a very similar job...I wouldn't recommend Investment Banking!!! ;-)

2007-10-19 08:41:54 · answer #4 · answered by HC123 4 · 2 1

In the military, same job, same rank same pay.I
The School System That has a set pay based on Education and Seniority.
Any job covered by a Union Contract, Equal pay for equal work.

2007-10-19 02:00:49 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

What about Nurses? We all get paid a meager pittance.

2007-10-19 00:42:10 · answer #6 · answered by Ashleigh 7 · 1 2

stay at home parent.
doctors.
lawyers.
cooks.
waitresses/waiters.
any flippen job in the US and Canada under the sun (except authors, painters, and musicians; that's based on talent)

2007-10-18 23:52:24 · answer #7 · answered by Aurum 5 · 1 3

fedest.com, questions and answers