The Shotgun Blog
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
That ever-present 'wage gap'
The always-fascinating debate about the "wage gap" between men and women will be sure to flare up again in response to today's release by Statistics Canada of new information about the subject.
The StatsCan report finds that the "wage gap" between the sexes narrowed only slightly in the 1990s, even though many more women than men earned university degrees. StatsCan suggests that one would have expected the gap to shrink more quickly in light of women's outperforming of men in the obtaining of university degrees, the holding of which is usually a key to higher-paying jobs.
However, StatsCan found that there were "real wage declines in female-dominated disciplines, such as health and education."
How interesting. Now, I suppose that some might argue that these real wage declines were the direct result of the ruling patriarchy's making sure that uppity women continue to be consigned to their pink ghetto.
However, I think a more reasonable interpretation of this would have to take into account two facts: first, women are free to choose to enter whatever discpline they want, and so are themselves responsible for streaming themselves into lower-paying areas; second, women's enthusiastic entry into the workplace over the last few decades has tended to be concentrated in certain specific areas, such as the aforementioned health and education sectors, thus creating an oversupply of job applicants.
And we all know what happens when there's an abundance of prospective workers applying for a limited number jobs: wages go down, as employers recognize that they needn't offer high pay to attract new employees.
Read the StatsCan release on its report here.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference That ever-present 'wage gap':
Your assessment of the reality behind the numbers is right on.
That will not stop the CBC types from ragging on the unfairness in the system etc.
So much BS so little time.
Posted by: Yanni | 2007-06-12 11:56:09 AM
Yup, more rubbish. If one avoids comparing apples and oranges, one would not find a "wage gap". Any female doing exactly the same job with the same qualifications as a male earns the same wage, but that truth is ignored. An example being the "pay equity" rulings which compared clerical jobs with managerial jobs, etc.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-06-12 12:16:54 PM
Terry: I think you should have finished the sentence in your quote.
"This was largely the result of real wage declines in female-dominated disciplines, such as health and education, and real wage increases in male-dominated disciplines, such as engineering, mathematics, computer sciences and physical sciences."
I do not have access to the study but my sense is that this study does not real measure a gender wage gap. My suspicion is the headline should have been a little different.
BREAKING NEWS: Engineers make more than Teachers
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-06-12 12:22:03 PM
Brent you are most likely correct, which is what I meant by my comment comparing apples and oranges. It is the old "pay equity" game. You identify female-dominated disciplines (often the result of affirmative action measures) and compare the wages with totally different disciplines. Really makes sense!
Posted by: Alain | 2007-06-12 12:29:32 PM
Agreed, Alain. Now, the cynical part of me suggest there is something more to this after all. If you consider that, in Canada, teaching and health are largely unionized and a lot of the public sector clerical jobs are unionized, it would seem to me that the motivation has both a union aspect to it as well as a "gender" aspect to it.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-06-12 12:35:29 PM
tough to get a career on the go when you're busy making babies. Maternity leave stunts a womans' career progression. It's problem that men don't have. It's unfortunate, but a reality that no government policy can fix.
My wife had to make a choice that I never had to, she sacrificed a high paying career to make a family. She still makes a boatload of money, but nowhere near what she could if she chose career over family.
Posted by: Robin | 2007-06-12 12:53:55 PM
Past studies showed that women make 66% of what men make. Other studies showed that women spend 75% of family incomes. Does that mean that women have three times the spending power of men? and how does that relate to a "wage gap"?
If a single female earns 66% of what a single man does how does that compare to a married man who gets to spend only 25% of his income? Just asking
Posted by: truthsayer | 2007-06-12 1:50:56 PM
I believe there is allot of truth in the statements that have been made here today.
The wage gap is real--there is no doubt about it.
And also, it is true that women are going into areas where there is female dominance.
And it is also true that men are going into areas where there is male dominance.
Now, I have never met a woman who said she loved working in her pink ghetto. And yet I have met men who have said they loved working in the pink ghetto.
And that last statement is no typo.
And I have met women who work in male dominated workplaces, who have had to take allot of heat from the men, for many years, before earning the respect deserved. Oh, and yet along the way, a pretty good paycheck to boot. Much better than that awefil pink ghetto.
And, I have met many more women, who have had to work in those icky pink ghettos, without allot of respect, and a ton of icky female heat. Oh, and along the way, they have made lousy money!
So, why is it that women are going into pink ghettos, if the wage is low, and they simply do not like it?
Maybe it is a matter of survival--if they have been turned down in the blue sectors, then what else is there? Not all women have wealthy men, or simply working men, who are happy to stand behind them, while they go to produce a family.
I tested this out just recently, just to see what would happen, if I applied to a whole bunch of entry level tech positions. I heard not even a squeak from these potential employers! Not a call, NADA! But the pink ghetto, well, they rolled out the hot-pink carpet to pink ghetto hell. You could smell the nanilla sugar spray a mile away!
I don't need to go there, and I am not going there. So, that begs to reason that women go where the doors open. They are simply not opening where the money is good.
If you really want to get your jock straps in a twist, check out the stats on the total population working, who are between the age of 15 and 65 by male and female. About 80% of men and about 60% women, are working. So, why is it there are twice as many unemployed women as there are men, and yet the unemployment rate makes it look as though it is the same, that there is no difference?
Well, I'll tell you why.
It is because women are considered unemployable as soon as their EI runs out. They are very quickly reclassified as unemployable, so that the EI and employement statistic does not make the government look bad.
So, why does the government bureaucracy lie to us like this? They need to hear it from a real Lady!
Seems to me that the solution to all this unemployment would be simple, if companies would realize that it is cheaper to relocate people in Canada, than it is to fly them in from other countries. AND, they can get them right now, without ANY red tape!
I think these companies who have not figured this out, are a bunch of losers! They need to hear it from a real Lady.
And I also believe that all these women who are surviving in these low paying pink ghettos, and who are full of well educated women, who are being under-utilized, are wasting their precious time.
They need to hear the truth from a real Lady!
Go get yourself a job in the blue ghetto, where the men are strong, and the air is fresh!
And especially leave these key-typing twits where they belong--in their pink ghettos!
Posted by: Lady | 2007-06-12 2:12:24 PM
"Go get yourself a job in the blue ghetto, where the men are strong, and the air is fresh!
And especially leave these key-typing twits where they belong--in their pink ghettos!"
And maybe realize that in the man's world there will be discomfort, some rejection and less touchy feely stuff.
Men and women are different and have different needs and requirements. It is understandable that blending the two genders in areas where they have traditionally been separate is not going to happen overnight. Be patient and persistent.
Of course the majority of men who work in the pink ghettos are most often effeminate or gay types and fit right in. It will be tougher for women to fit into the mans world.
For thousands of years men and women have had defined roles and that is all changing now. It is human nature to resist change and so it will take longer than most would like to see a true mix in all work places.
Meanwhile, Terry has hit it right. Women and men still make different choices because they are different. That shows up in the money.
Posted by: Yanni | 2007-06-12 2:48:22 PM
Ref to the post up here on spanking.
Another stupid incursion where the state has no business.
See what the book of Proverbs say about correcting children. The Word of God is the reference.
Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-06-12 2:49:23 PM
Yanni wrote: Of course the majority of men who work in the pink ghettos are most often effeminate or gay types and fit right in.
Like ballet dancers, hair dressers and interior designers.
Yanni wrote: It will be tougher for women to fit into the mans world.
Not if your from the LPGA
Posted by: St Albion Parish News | 2007-06-12 3:19:10 PM
Posted by: Yanni | 2007-06-12 3:33:43 PM
A third possibility is that the commies at StatsCan are a bunch of lying dirtbags.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-06-12 3:50:43 PM
Please note: "Twit" is gender neutral. I am surprised you missed the word-play on that as the joke was on all of us here bloggers.
Yes, you sit and type therefore you are in the pink ghetto.
Sounds like a phrase for Black Sabbath or some other hard rock band, "Welcome to the pink ghetto, everything will be alright..."
In fact, all characteristics of men and women are gender neutral. That which is not, is culturally defined. The only part that is not culturally defined, is morphological--even then, the almighty has seen fit to confuse us at every turn, with what is differing from what we expect.
You think that everything has been separated between men and women for thousands of years--that is the story you wish to adhere to.
Around the world, there has been a patern that has developed and disintegrated, which is the separation of people by gender.
That which has created strength of people and character, comes out of a population of people, who have chosen to not divide themselves on the precepts of gender. Where ever you see strength around the world, you see this. You see, the people are blessed. Where ever you see great division, you see troubles--the people are not blessed.
Fact remains, men are still treated as though they have greater entitlement on the basis of their genitals. And women are treated as though they are required to take care of society, without pay. And as long as men and women do not come to terms with that which leads to this issue, there will be a wage gap.
And by that I do mean as individuals and not as groups, as you statistically see the difference by groups, but it is experienced one person at a time. This point is relevant, as there is no such thing as women as a group. I do not belong to a real association, that is automatic and free, on the basis of my gender. You can say that theoretically, we do, and that theoretically, we belong to the human race, but that really is where it all ends.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-06-12 4:07:10 PM
Lady wrote: In fact, all characteristics of men and women are gender neutral. That which is not, is culturally defined. The only part that is not culturally defined, is morphological--even then, the almighty has seen fit to confuse us at every turn, with what is differing from what we expect.
Babelfish translation: All the characteristics of the men and Mrs. sex-neutrals are real. This, which is not, is culturelement defined. The only part, which is not culturelement defined, is morphological -- even then, the all-powerful saw of seat to confuse us with each revolution around also of itself differentiates, which us, in order to envisage.
If you run "Lady" words through babelfish a few times you find that neither make any sense.
Posted by: St Albion Parish News | 2007-06-12 4:20:59 PM
St A and Yanni,
Actually, they are normal guys who have figured out that it is easier to get a date in the pink ghetto than it is on a oil rig. SO, it stands to reason that there are more out there on Brokeback Mountain and oil rigs than in the pink ghetto, if you know what I mean.
hahaha! Suppossed to be funny!
Sounds like paranoia to me. There are far too many people entering in simple numbers from census, for them to be some communist or left wing group, so as you say, that is conspiring against you. You are aware of the fact that there are some great meds out there for this illness-issue? Although people lie, numbers do not.
hahahah! Also suppossed to be funny.
You should try it sometime. You know, counting. Say out loud, 1., 2., 3., 4.,,, you know they are what they are. If you do not like it, you can lie about the numbers and say 1 is 3 and 2 is 4, but you would be lying.
Back to the truth, the numbers themselves, they are concepts that relate to things that really exist. In grade one, they relate to the numbers with apples and oranges, so you equate the formula automatically with the figure. There is only the concept of 4, and no such thing as 4. Unless you are talking about the figure.
When hundreds of people enter the data collected into computers, they enter them in as the people listed off the responses. There are no lies there.
Where there is lying though, is in the gleening of what it means, after they have decided that every single woman who has completed her EI can no longer be considered as employable.
BTW, same thing happens to the men, which is why the figure is as low as it is. The truth of the matter is, they only count so far--like choosing to only count these apples, as oppossed to including those apples over there, even though those apples really do exist.
When will the companies learn that the best way to get people to their places of work, is to bus them from the cities, to the country, and put them straight to work. All those homeless people in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, could be working tomorrow.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-06-12 4:21:28 PM
TAX CUTS WORK!!
"US Federal Deficit Sharply Lower"
Despite the ongoing war in Iraq -
It worked when JFK did it, and Ronald Reagan too!
Posted by: obc | 2007-06-12 4:25:33 PM
Your world is filled with unnecessary sophistry.
Things are what they are. Your fruit and number analogies are ... well fruity and numby.
Men who work in pink environs in order to get laid are simpletons who live at the shallow end of the pool. They are best at creating single moms and not much else. Well, perhaps some cheap red wine in their basements.
Posted by: Yanni | 2007-06-12 5:14:47 PM
Sounds like paranoia to me. There are far too many people entering in simple numbers from census, for them to be some communist or left wing group, so as you say, that is conspiring against you. You are aware of the fact that there are some great meds out there for this illness-issue? Although people lie, numbers do not." -Lady
Did I say StatsCan was conspiring against me?
You are delusional, Lady. There may be some meds for that, but I think you are incurable.
You have erroneous assumptions guiding your too parochial views.
While there may or may not be significant numbers of people collecting the survey input for StatsCan, the question and criteria for the categories of analysis predetermine the outcome in favour of StatsCan's agenda to advance socialism.
There have been wage parity laws for decades and any supposed wage gaps between men and women in the work force are overwhelmingly due to choices women make in their lifestyles and careers, not gender discrimination.
I have been running my own company for eight years, so StatsCan's survey is, in this case, irrelevant to my income.
Affect me? No.
The conspiracy reveals in the obvious propaganda thrust of the survey itself.
Why were Canadian taxes spent on such a survey?
Are there not Human Rights tribunals in every Province to review grievances on a case by case basis?
Are there not Unions representing all members equally regardless of gender?
Does each Province not have legislation guiding hiring, firing, benefits and conduct in the workplace between employees and employers?
Why was a blanket survey taken to demonstrate that the Government was somehow responsible for an illusory wage gap between genders when the gap is the result of personal career choices made by individual women?
The answer is that StatsCan created the surrvey to prod the Governments into more regulation in the Labour Market.
"A lie told often enough becomes the truth."
"Democracy is indispensable to socialism."
"The goal of socialism is communism."
Posted by: Speller | 2007-06-13 8:13:05 AM
"Although people lie, numbers do not."
...umm, where do the numbers come from?
Posted by: tomax7 | 2007-06-13 9:28:11 AM
Now you are the one projecting. I never said anything about "getting..." as you put it. So crude Yanni.
Some men prefer the company of women. This does not mean they are gay. This also does not mean they are desperate. And some men prefer the pink ghetto for the same reasons some women do. It is not a conspiracy--it is what it is.
You have way too much time on your hands--playing with babelfish like that, is unsophisticated at best. You remind me of a monkey in a cage in a lab, who rattles the cage and throws his food around, while doing other messy things, just to get a second of attention from the lab attendent.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-06-13 9:30:27 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.