I've seen a few comments recently (and a while ago) about the difference in pay between jobs that are considered "male" or "female." I suppose an example of a male job would be a construction worker and an example of a female job would be a nurse.
I don't have figures on actual wages paid, but when one takes into account:
1) The existence or absence of risk/danger
2) Hours worked
3) Security and other benefits, or the absence thereof
and other variables, do the differences in actual labor and risk (in which labor intensive/high risk/high requirement [i.e., higher education] jobs probably pay more money) justify the differences in pay, or is an element of discrimination almost certainly involved? Alternatively, is the situation some mix of both scenarios? If so, to what extent? Allegra, certainly you can do better than that.
All the points belong, and for good reason.
1. Risk and danger refers to the fact that construction workers can actually DIE on the job. How many fatalities do secretaries suffer? How many do miners suffer? Another element of risk is something like the stock market, or law. You aren't going to be winning all the time, and you have a lot of pressure. Where is the pressure in secretarial work, or in a daycare?
2) Hours worked DEFINITELY belongs. If you are working for low pay and work a lot of hours, there is absolutely no reason why you can't climb the scale. None. If, however, you are working part time and work "long hours," you are STILL not working as long as someone who works part time.
3) "Benefits" include the ability to take off work a few days out of the week, have nice dental care, or be able to have on-site daycare. How many lawyers are afforded that option?
I'm out of space, so I'll end it there. There's no "male conspiracy" to pay engineers more than nurses. That is the free market at work: CAPITALISM. Plain and simple.
Women tend to chose nursing over engineering and thus chose a lower paying (but decent paying) profession. THAT is one of the major components to the wage gap.
As far as any "same job" disparity is concerned, there are multiple factors, such as salary negotiation and the willingness to sacrifice personal time so as to work non-stop for years (no breaks for childbirth and maternity).
If a man and woman work identical jobs, negotiate their salaries identically, perform identically, and take the identical time off, I doubt you would find any difference in pay for the same job.
That's just capitalism, which many feminists decry as unfair to women. But, it allows women to chose ANY profession they so desire. What could be more fair?
Just ask the Cuban heart surgeon floating over to Miami in his '57 Chevy boat what he thinks of a controlled market vs. a free market.
EDIT:
ALLEGRA makes a valid point.
The "free market" is based on what *people* chose to buy and how much they are willing to spend.
There's no secret that CEOs outearn nurses and firefighters. The nursing and fire academy students know that too, but are choosing not to be CEOs now.
So, teachers and day care providers are underpaid by WHOM?
I have *never* seen feminist mothers who complain about day care workers or teachers being underpaid sending in $500 checks with their kids to compensate.
If they genuinely feel that these professionals should be paid more, THEY should pay more for these services. They should set the example and open up their purses and try to influence "the market" to follow rather than complain ad nauseum.
Furthermore, many women *prefer* their children to be cared for by women. So, who is discriminating against these poorly paid women? They don't even *want* men doing those jobs.
EDIT:
Allegra, I don鈥檛 mean to be insulting, I really don鈥檛. But, do you know anything about supply and demand economics? Do you really think there are 12 angry white men sitting around a room setting wages for the rest of the world?
I mean, you don鈥檛 think there鈥檚 just a tiny connection between what people are willing to pay for a service and what that service costs? You don鈥檛 think there鈥檚 any connection between what someone is willing to work for and what the employer is willing to pay for that job?
What if a single hospital refuses pay to its nurses above minimum wage? How many nurses could they hire? Zero. Why? People are paid what they are willing to work for.
That is economics 101. Nurses in general are willing to start at $45,000 - $65,000, depending on location and training. If 90% of new nurses were unwilling to work for less than $75,000 to start that is what they would be paid because we must have nurses.
But, they CHOSE to work for less, *collectively*. That is 鈥渢he market鈥?dictating what an individual makes, based on what a group decides to do.
There aren鈥檛 12 angry white men controlling all of this. It is simply supply and demand economics.
People know what their career of choice is paid prior to entering it. And they get paid what they are willing to work for. That varies from profession to profession. So, in reality the employee sets the wage, based on what s/he is willing to work for.
Hard work myth?
I went only to public school, graduated from an inexpensive public college (that I paid for myself) when the US economy was still in the toilet and couldn't get hired.
So, I started my own business. I am an average guy, not super smart academically (though I am an engineer), did not come from money, and had zero connections in the business community where I now live.
Not sure which "hard work" myth you are referring to but I don't live in that world. I'm just trying to make payroll next week. job conditions and requirements do not explain difference in wages.
there have been studies of company payrolls, they find women are paid less for exact same jobs as males.
Justification is typically potential for childbirth, which means interruption or end of career. Why should a construction worker and a nurse be paid the same salaries? Each career path should have its own wage basis, no matter who does it. Some of the things you discuss probably warrant pay differentials but the real problem lies in unequal pay for identical work.
The concerns which have recently been voiced have to do with the fact that women are still getting less pay for the same job that a man is doing, there's no way to justify this other than to decry the condition and impose severe penalties against employers who continue to practice this kind of discriminatory practice.
There really isn't any justifying perpetuating this practice and it ought to be stopped as we are paid for what we are producing now, not whether or not we will still be with the company a year from now. The lamebrain idea that pregnancy is a factor is patent nonsense. And I say that as a man who saw to it that the women and men who I worked witrh received the same pay based entirely on performance based production. You're kind of missing the point here. Among jobs which do not require bachelor's degree levels of education, traditionally male jobs pay living, even better-than-living, wages: construction, welding, assembly, mine work, other metal work, the military (the military basically sets you up for life with insurance). None of these require more than high school education. They are fairly secure and generally offer good benefits. Women's jobs that don't require education - not "nurse," but secretary, sales clerk, janitor/cleaning lady, waitress, laundrywoman - do not. They are part-time, have no benefits. Indeed, more "work" is required of the "male" jobs. Why do women learn not to "like" more "work"? It's a Victorian ideal for women to sit around and not get dirty and not stress out too much. So, yes, cultural factors come into play big-time with the types of jobs men and women are steered toward.
Your number 3 does not belong on the list because the women's jobs I just mentioned do not offer any. Hours worked doesn't really belong on the list, either, because one can work 60 hours a week at minimum wage and still make nothing. So we're left with "risk/danger," whatever that means. Male jobs are not that "dangerous" with proper safety precautions. More than that, we're left with "physical exertion" and "dirt," which women are taught to avoid.
_____________
Oh, OK, sider. I guess firefighters, who save lives, are worth monumentally less to the "free market" than CEOs who make more money than a person could ever possibly need in his/her lifetime. The "free market" is not a living entity. The "free market" does not set wages. People do.
_____________
Sigh. No. They don't belong. You're completely mixing your logic.
1. In fact, many woman textile factory workers did die on the job. (Ever heard of fires and buildings with improper fire escapes?) They still die on the job and are treated like s.hit on the job overseas.
There are "pressures" in every job. I don't even know how that's relevant. The pressures are different and of different intensities (you don't need to produce a certain number of items in an hour if you're working at a daycare, for example), but they're still there. What do you think secretaries and waitresses do, pick flowers? It's so low-pressure they wander around in a retarded daze?
Have you ever even HAD a job?
2. "If you are working for low pay and work a lot of hours, there is absolutely no reason why you can't climb the scale." Um, yes, there is. You know, McDonald's and Wal-Mart. They're called *dead-end jobs*. I'm sure you're also not familiar with a recent Wal-Mart suit filed by women all over the country who could not get promoted. I don't even know what you're talking about with the "long hours" thing. Part-time jobs do not force you to work 20 hours at a clip anyway. Der.
3. The "ability to take a few days off of work a week" is not a "benefit." I speak of benefits like INSURANCE and job security. Those are actual job benefits, not personal benefits like "Oh, goodie, I get to spend more time with my kids." Your part-time employer couldn't give a s.hit if you get to spend more time with your kids. They're just overjoyed they don't have to give you medical insurance.
Um, on-site daycare is had by pretty much no one. Another reason women don't keep as many high-paying lawyer positions. Again - *look* - *woman being pushed out of high-paying job just because she has babies and capitalist society treats babies like a disease but then instead accuses pro-choicers of treating babies like a disease*.
HOW MANY LAWYERS HAVE DENTAL CARE??!! Wow. What. ALL LAWYERS HAVE EXCELLENT DENTAL CARE. MANY MINE WORKERS, WELDERS, AND SOLDIERS HAVE DENTAL CARE. NO WAITRESSES, SECRETARIES, OR CLEANING LADIES HAVE DENTAL CARE.
______________
No. Having to collect donation on the street has no bearing on what the "free market" thinks of firefighters. People donate millions of dollars a year to crap that they only moderately care about. It makes no reflection on "what's more important to people."
"Yet, they are *choosing* to be nurses and firefighters rather than CEOs. And earn less."
You do not choose to be a CEO. People choose you. Setting out to be a CEO is like setting out to be president. "I think I'm going to go to school to be a CEO now." No. I'm going to guess that 99 percent of everyone who sets out to be a CEO, no matter how "hard" they work, will never become one.
"We can't control the market because there are billions of people who collectively decide who gets paid what."
They do? I don't recall being asked to make up any kind of collective to decide who gets paid what. Unions used to help workers do this. Now, in fact, I'm pretty sure a very select few white men decide who gets paid what.
"But, women (and men) can CHOOSE what they will do within the free market and how much they will earn from the free market."
The worker is allowed to "choose" to a tiny extent. "Salary negotiation" only goes so far, as you yourself just attested in an earlier question regarding a new female hire - you couldn't afford to pay the previous supervisor what he was getting paid before he left. When there are only Wal-Mart jobs available in the area where I live, I have no choice. When businessfolk treat women like a perpetual pregnancy threat, I have no choice.
Have you ever bought into the individualism and "hard work" myths whole-heartedly. I will just deal with one issue - your 'question' is to convoluted to do othewise
1. Look at the ages of the construction workers who are injured and killed.
2. Look at the training these boys are NOT provided with; lack of supervision.
3. Construction-site hazards that are in contravention of established safety regulations.
"What are the greatest health risks for young men?
Disease is not the biggest threat to young men鈥檚 health 鈥?injuries are. Of all the men who die between the ages of15-24, almost four out of every five is killed by fatal injuries. The causes include:
Motor vehicle accidents - 27% of all male deaths in this age are caused by car crashes.
Suicide is the cause of 26% of young male deaths
Other accidents including poisoning, falls, fire, drowning and machinery cause 15% of deaths.
Violence kills 4% of young men.
Accidents and other events like suicide and violence account for over three-quarters of all deaths in this age group. Also, the risks of accidental death are higher for young men than for young women. More than three out of four people between the ages of 15-24 who die every year are male.
Why are young men at such risk?
Young men tend to lead lifestyles that don't promote their health. Three factors play a part in this: risky behaviour, their knowledge and attitudes about health, and their beliefs about manhood.
Risky behaviour
Young men tend to take bigger risks in these areas of their lives:
driving
drinking and using drugs
smoking
sex
sports
travel
WORK
fighting and using weapons.
As a society, we tend to support this risk-taking behaviour in men and boys. Often, if young men and boys don鈥檛 do these things, they鈥檙e made to feel like they鈥檙e not acting properly.
Knowledge and attitudes about health
Young men tend not to look for information about health [and by extension, SAFETY CONCERNS]. Without that information, they may not see their health as a main concern and are less likely to visit a health care provider regularly. When they鈥檙e sick, they tend to have a "wait and see" attitude until their condition gets worse.
Beliefs about manhood
Many young men believe they need to keep weakness inside. This includes not admitting when they鈥檙e in pain, feeling sick or are upset emotionally. These beliefs may have been instilled from a young age.
As a result, young men are less likely to look for help and support. This can mean a physical or mental illness goes unchecked for longer and could be harder to treat.
How can I change this pattern?
Many DEATHS, INJURIES and diseases ARE PREVENTABLE. Here are some starting points for a healthier lifestyle:
Take safety precautions (such as wearing a helmet and protective gear) if you're involved in risky activities...".
HOURS WORKED? CONSTRUCTION WORK IS SEASONAL.
INCIDENTALLY: THE LEADING CAUSE OF MIDDLE-AGE MALE MORTALITY?
SUCIDE. MEN ARE FAR LESS LIKELY TO SEEK HELP (MEDICAL AND PSYCHIATRIC) THAN ARE WOMEN.
http://www.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?...
SO MUCH FOR YOUR ARGUMENT. You missed one:
1. Education required.
*That's* the problem with "pink collar" jobs - such as nursing, social work, library science, day-care teacher, etc. All of these jobs require at least a bachelor's degree, if not post-graduate work. The woman who runs the day care center I used to work at has a master's in early childhood education - and I would estimate, makes about $18,000 a year.
Some situations do work out as you had expected - low risk/low education jobs pay less. Part of the problem is that the idea of caretaking as unimportant is so ingrained in our society, that anyone who works with the general public is seen as "unskilled". It *is* an anti-woman bias, but it's far deeper than outright discrimination. Traditionally, there is are male/female jobs, However the roles are becoming less gender related. There are female construction workers and there are male nurses. This is the problem. If both a male and a female were to walk in today and fill out applications for the same job, (Lets use Nurse as the job and lets say there are two positions.) and both got hired, the male would make 7% more than the female employee at inital hire. In 5 years lets say both had the same work history. the male would make 11% more than the female. This is just how society works the male will make more than the female. It still goes back to the male is the breadwinner of the household eventhough there are more single moms in the world. Society on this part of it will never change. It hasn't changed since women went into the workforce and I see it to never change. Women can now hold more job classifications for example, CEO, but will still make less than their male counterpart. I'm not saying that it should be, I am just saying this is how it is.
It doesn't matter the risk, hours worked and benefits. A big reason has to do with the fact of being a mother. Businesses factor in that women will take off more because of children so it makes them more disposable. This is refered to the Glass Ceiling and the Mommy Track. Research these two things and you will find all the info you want to know about this subject. |
