JTF:
good stuff!
looking at the evidence as closely as possible is always a good start.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Kudos to cytochem and tochigi for actually looking at the data and asking relevant questions about the trend.

Just to clarify for those who’ve written screeds of generalisations: the statistic under discussion refers to employed women and men who work for wages and salaries (ie, it excludes the self-employed, employers – and of course the non-employed). It’s not about all women and men. And it’s not about total earnings (which are affected by hours worked); it’s about the hourly rate.

The ratio of female/male median hourly earnings increased between 1997 and 2002 from 83.0 percent to 87.8 percent (a large leap which has received little attention), and had fallen slightly to 85.7 percent by 2005.

Short-term fluctuations like this are unlikely to be caused by broad factors such as discrimination (Frog) or gender preferences (Logix). More plausible factors include fluctuating demand for certain skills from a labour market with long-standing sex differences in occupational distribution, as well as union coverage and clout.

Occupations that showed significant increases in average hourly earnings in the year to June 2005 were agriculture and fisheries workers (13.7 percent); trades workers (9.5 percent); and plant and machine operators and assemblers (7.3 percent). These are all male-dominated occupations. The big wage rises won by nurses recently may show up in future surveys.

The Statistics release doesn’t give a breakdown by age and sex but in The Social Report 2005 there is a graph on page 53 that shows almost no difference in the median hourly earnings of males and females under 35 years. So there have been gains for women from higher education in the last decade or so. The world that Logix describes is changing.

http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/paid-work/

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Katie:

Very interesting.

I suspect the same thinking on minimum pay rates is sometimes/often applied to parents (usually mothers) who work during school hours, and in some instances may require time off when kids are sick.

This work pattern, and its subsequent low wage, may be further affected by the other parent (if still on the scene) being unable to take time out in an emergency. “He” (in this instance) having been trapped in the “work all hours” expectation which is now part of the problem, and he is thus unable to take share “time out” when emergencies arise.

Add this to the Great Student Loan Societal Effect etc … ”

eredwen

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

eredwen, logix, et al;

I am so saving this to use in my “Gender, power and Knowledge” course this summer!

funny how statistics which NZUSA have been using, from research which has been conducted over 5 years, is not acceptable in this context. The %ages used by frog have been growing over the past 3 years, it used to be 86% to 100%, F – M split, but the F wage is dropping.

My take on why that’s happenning is part of the “great student loans societal affect conspiracy theory” whereby the need for part-time work while studying is driving down average adult pay-rates, and many more people are acceting work at the minimum adult pay rates ($9.60/hour) which employers seem to think is good enough for students of any skill level or ability, never mind prior experience.

Most guys just don’t keep doing the crappy lowest-paid jobs, they find something that has requirements of physical stamina or bulk, (eg; labouring, security guard/bouncer, etc) and jump away from waiting/shop assistant/office drudge, which get filled by sweet young things in short skirts and high heels, without a feminist thought in their heads, who wouldn’t dream of asking for a pay rise once the ink has set on their temporary, casual, non-union employment contract.

It’s up to the aging unionists to keep pushing the issue that women generally, and especially in woman-dominated industries, get paid less.

IT is an environment of it’s own, and yes, I know women in IT who have always done well career-wise, but they just don’t share the career experience of 95% of women in the workforce. Unfortunately, most IT women don’t know this, because they really don’t have social time to spend with anyone outside their own industry, and attributes differences in experience to personality rather than occupational differences (in my extensive experience of my sister, her friends, and my ex-husband and his peers).

None of the people I know in IT can understand anyone choosing to work in another field, either, total lack of comprehension or imagination!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Logix:

I prefer the second version … but would add “in every way” in the last sentence, to read:

“It is no more possible for men and women to be equivalent to each other “in every way” than it was for the communists to make everyone equally wealthy.”

In many areas the differences mean diddly sqat. We are members of the same species …

Thanks for the effort. (I’m impressed.)
eredwen

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Nah, I’ve been patronised by experts…..

My partner and I have gone over this thread (hence the delay) and our upfront take on feminism is this:

It is rather like socialism, a good idea until it was taken too far and turned into something else, communism. It is axiomatic that (to us at least) that men and women are equals, spiritually, ethically, and are accorded the (almost) identical stature before the law. There is no question they both posses the same inalienable rights, but they are not identical. It is no more possible for men and women to be equivalent to each other than it was for the communists to make everyone equally wealthy.

Go analyse that

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Great response!

The questions are: Would you have noticed if it was a male writer? and if you had noticed, would you have commented to that male writer?

e

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

eredwen,

>This is an area with which I am familiar. Male recipients often make the assumption that a female’s writing on this topic is a personal assault on that individual male. (Such men tend to assume that it is always OK to be “helpful� and tell women “what is what�.)

It gets rather tedious so I try to avoid these situations before they happen.

I’ll put it bluntly, cut the “patronising bullshit”. I’ve been blogging a while and our interesting and decent conversation is as far from my idea of a “personal assault” as it could possibly be.

You were the one who hedged your post with “However, against my better judgment, I will try …” and “Have you noticed how carefully I have covered myself here?” and ” Unfortunately that is a form of “rescuingâ€? (translate as: protecting some men from potentially making “total dicksâ€? of themselves by the replies they may write)”

And no this is not a personal attack, really. I would be just as happy to say it to your rt (non-virtual) face, and say it with a grin, and trust to be good friends after. Sometimes I just try to be too polite for my own good…so here is my upfront take on “feminism”.

It was kind of like socialism, a great idea, until someone took it too far and it became something else, communism. It is 100% agreed that men and women, are both equally human and of equal spiritual and ethical stature and are accorded the same rights in law. What you cannot do is make them absolutely the same as each other, no more than a communist could make everybody equally wealthy.

Go analyse that

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“Oh speak not of need!” (King Lear I think). I hang out on blog comments threads exactly for the purpose of arguing the point (topics of non-virtual conversation in the local expat community tending to be restricted to methods of smuggling in alcohol, how to make you own wine/beer and who’s doing it with whom). If it’s tedious, don’t read or reply – for my part, I always reply, that’s what I’m here for. I’m not surprised these kind of arguments get tedious for you, because it’s hard to imagine anyone of either sex (don’t know which one Logix is) remaining silent for patronising responses like the one above.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Logix and Psycho_milt:

You didn’t need to reply!

However: Fascinating responses and wonderful stuff to analyse!

and to answer Logix’s “guess”:

“From the tone of your last post I guess that you are responding to a perceived challenge to what are deeply held ideas for you.”

Not an accurate guess. Not a “perceived challenge”.
This is an area with which I am familiar. Male recipients often make the assumption that a female’s writing on this topic is a personal assault on that individual male. (Such men tend to assume that it is always OK to be “helpful” and tell women “what is what”.)

It gets rather tedious so I try to avoid these situations before they happen.

Kia ora!
eredwen

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Tochigi and Eredwen: at issue in this thread is that Frog has taken a difference in average incomes and jumped to the conclusion that employers are deliberately ripping women off to the tune of 7 hours unpaid labour per week, despite other more likely explanations being available. Those who’ve troubled themselves to point out that this is bad social science and a misuse of statistics have pretty much been accused of sexism, without any corresponding evidence of such. I’m willing to give that all the serious consideration it deserves, no rescue necessary.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

eredwen,

From the tone of your last post I guess that you are responding to a perceived challenge to what are deeply held ideas for you.

And if you read me carefully I tried to express myself in a way that “covered my ass” too. Forty years ago it was common for men and women doing the SAME job to be paid differently. This is no longer the case, the war was won, and good on you.

What I am challenging however is the failure of some to stop fighting. The misuse of the statistics that originally sparked this thread is one of the most common “talking points” that is raised. To my mind it is very bad science to go from generalised statistics about a disparity in total earnings, to assuming that this is because evil male employers like to exploit helpless female workers by paying them less.

Now as far as I can tell the only feasible way for female total earnings to be made the same as male earnings, would be to pay women at a higher rate than men. Care to defend that idea? After all women live longer than men, have a longer retirement to fund, have a somewhat shorter careers and higher lifetime medical expenses, so why not relegate men to second class status and pay them less?

For what it is worth I have never even hinted at the relevance of physical differences. In most jobs these days it is simply not a relevant factor, on the other hand in our grandparents day it was. Back then many jobs were indeed “backbreaking labour” and relatively few women could, or were allowed to, tackle them, and this ancient and “reality based” attitude took some battling to break down. Nowaday it really is ‘girls can do anything”.

Yet even today there are some jobs women rarely choose. For instance there are very few women who choose drainlaying, or work in sewerage treatment plants, yet as far as I know there is absolutely no impediment to them doing so. There are quite a number of such jobs about, roadmaking, forestry, sawmilling, tanneries, etc which are highly male dominated not because women could not do the work, but because they choose not to, because they have different values and outlooks to men.

And yes it is true that women tend to be the ones who “make concessions to “keep things happyâ€?.” But would you have it different? Would women in general be happy if were men who took second place in order to keep things happy, it were men who had first choice at not working in order to look after family, and men who routinely chose lesser paying jobs in order to follow their high status and well paid partner through a career? How many women look for potential partners who may be decent reliable men in every respect, but are terminally unemployed? Some may, but most I can assure you, do not. Frankly most women put achievement and earnings potential fairly high on their “male shopping list”, and yet by contrast few enter a long-term relationship with the expectation that they will always be the primary bread winner, as most men do. And if you want to brand this “sexist” thinking by all means feel free, the trouble is I am only a man, and no way do I feel responsible for how most women think.

My point is that wherever you look in life, men and women have different priorities and values, and make different choices. Is is so surprising that this also applies in the workplace? However much feminism wanted to convince us that men and women are absolutely identical, the real world keeps informing us differently.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

psyco_milt (and quite a few others):

I wasn’t going to answer this (as I think it comes into my “There is no point in farting against thunder” category.) However, against my better judgment, I will try …

psycho_milt wrote (October 14th, 2005 at 11:16 pm)

“Eredwen, why the disbelief? You won that battle (not all by yourself, but you know what I mean), and nobody on this thread is anything but happy about that, I’m sure”… etc etc

I believe that your reference was to my opening comment:

“I am of the generation that worked/fought for parity in wages and employment. I’m shaking my head in utter disbelief at this array of opinions.” etc etc …

My partial answer:

You probably have heard the expression:
“We won the battle but lost the war.”

My “disbelief” was the evidence I saw before my eyes among these posts, that it might be happening again. (I would prefer to disbelieve it!)

I was unprepared for what I read, as my two young-adult offspring (male and female) and and all of their friends show no signs of sexist thinking.

Those who have studied and/or thought deeply about “sexism” (and preferably have experienced it first hand as well) could point out in many of the so called logical/rational opinions in these posts, many classic examples of sexist thinking.

The fact that some writers are Green (or sypathetic to Green ideas), intelligent/educated (and live with intelligent/educated women), and believe that they are egalitarian or even “feminist” in their thinking makes it worrying … (“it” being the trend)

I am aware that “feminism” is no longer “cool”. Hoever, younger women, having had the advantage of growing up in a society that gave them wide horizons, do have the attitudes and skills to get where they want to go in most endeavours. Many are also more “selfish” and assertive. Many of them are doing well. However from what I have read on this site, and know from history, these gains could easily be lost because women are more likely to be the ones who (are expected to) make concessions to “keep things happy”. (This expectation is usually internalised as part of being female.) I am not talking about choosing to be a full time parent here. That is a legitimate choice, if one has the financial means, and IF that choice is freely made among a full range of other realisitic options.

Because I realise that this post may be seen as …(it isn’t)… a challenge to some readers:

One of my credentials:
I was a member of the team that set up “Feminist Studies” at Univ of Canterbury in 1983/4 (Canterbury now has a “Gender Studies”Dept that includes male lecturers, tutors and students … while (some?)other places in AotearoaNZ still stick to “Women’s Studies”)

and to answer those who use the physical as an argument …

Another credential:
I have been, and am, involved in a competitive sport at the National (sometimes International) level on and off since the mid 1960′s. In all that time, in my chosen sport, in whatever category (now its “the old buggers” (Masters)) there have seldom been more than one or two men in the country who place higher than I do. I am smaller than they are, and not as physically strong, but I make up for that with extra skill and efficiency.

I have written this only because I was asked to, “against my better judgement”.

Have you noticed how carefully I have covered myself here?
Unfortunately that is a form of “rescuing” (translate as: protecting some men from potentially making “total dicks” of themselves by the replies they may write) In general, women learn to be good at that.

On that note, I’d actually be happier if people don’t reply with any “Yes, but’s” and, instead, just think about what I have said and whether there is any of it that you recognise.

I do like men! (reassurance … another “rescuing” technique)

Kia ora!
eredwen

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

cytochem:

thanks for putting up the median figures. always better than mean when discussing income.

but really, the median wage differential has widened by 2 percentage points. has the previous trend been reversed, and if so, why? what has changed enough to reverse the previous trend? it’s a valid issue to discuss.

(btw, some of the other posters on this thread seem to think “they get paid what they deserve” is a valid argument/explanation. just looks like unreconstructed sexism to me)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Indeed if this were not the case women would have a competitive advantage in the workplace and men would find themselves being shunted out of jobs by women who would do it cheaper.

Earth to Logix… well isn’t that exactly what those dirty rotten women do in certain professions? They practically shut men out of nursing, by accepting low wages and routine humiliation from the male-dominated doctor caste. As Laila Harre has demonstrated, they are seriously underpaid WRT their level of qualification etc… In France, I have observed over the past decade the dramatic increase in the proportion of male primary school teachers, after pay parity with secondary was achieved… what’s the proportion of male check-out operators in supermarkets… etc

Low-paid, low-status, servile type occupations attract a high proportion of women. Risk averse, eh? Clearly, the chicks have an attitude problem.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Eredwen, why the disbelief? You won that battle (not all by yourself, but you know what I mean), and nobody on this thread is anything but happy about that, I’m sure. I, and presumably Tane, Logix et al although I can’t speak for them, only have a problem with someone taking a bald, society-wide average and jumping to a conclusion from it. Very bad social science to do such a thing. And especially bad social science to invent bad guys like “society” or “employers” whose malignant conspiracy is supposedly responsible for the unpleasant statistic.

For instance, how “society” values a particular profession does not determine how much they’re paid. That is determined by things like the necessity of their skills to an organisation, the scarcity of those skills, the militancy with which the possessors of those skills pursue higher wages etc. “Society” doesn’t value IT people very highly (nerds, geeks, dorks etc) but IT people don’t give a rat’s ass – their pay is good. As a librarian, I’ll never earn as much as my wife does as a scientist, but that isn’t because of society or malignant employers, it’s because of the factors listed above.

Re parenting, I wouldn’t bother to mention the prospect of both parents sharing the responsibility of looking after children, because how people raise their children is their own damn business. Logix put all this far more diplomatically, but now it’s time for the unreconstructed punk to have a go. If more women than men are sacrificing their careers to look after children, those are decisions that are theirs to make. “Society” is not standing over them with a shotgun. If a woman sacrifices her career to look after children while her husband cheerfully goes on doing what he’s always done, who’s forcing her to take sole responsibility? Society? Well, why not tell society to stick its behavioural expectations up its arse? The husband? Well, who made him her boss? It’s not the 1950s any more, and women like Eredwen freed the slaves back in the 70s. If you’re living with a man who thinks children and housework are your job, all I can say is “Why? You’re just encouraging them”. Much as I hate to view the prospect, I’m led to the ugly right-wing term “personal responsibility”.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

A very interesting thread. I did fail to emphasise that I have no problem whatsoever with equal pay for equal work. Indeed if this were not the case women would have a competitive advantage in the workplace and men would find themselves being shunted out of jobs by women who would do it cheaper.

The key question to bear in mind is the difference between pay rates, and total earnings. It is pefectly possible that in general men and women have very similar pay rates (ie a male and female sales person in the same organisation, at the same experience and seniority are very likely to be paid very much the same), but for male total earnings to be somewhat higher yhan female, for a variety of reasons that have less to do with employer discrimination, and far more to do with employee choices.

One element of the pay disparity that arises between men and women is the degree of risk that they are prepared to undertake. The big bad marketplace values work by a number of measures, only one of which is the hours worked and the effort expended. (If this were the case shearers would be the highest paid of all!!) The other obvious measures are the degree of training and skill, and the relative scarcity of qualified workers available.

But the most potent measure of how much a job is valued is determined by the degree of responsibility and risk attached to it. For example when nurses were largely relegated to changing bedpans, and low level caring duties, their level of responsibility was considered low and they were paid accordingly. In those days the doctors reigned supreme in the medical system. In recent times however nurses have become highly trained professionals in their own right, assume a significant responsibilty for the medical care of the patient and now attract much better pay.

Therefore one of the most powerful reasons why women’s total earnings lag male earnings is the relatively lower willingness to assume respnsibility and risk. Of course many women do, they run businesess, are some of our higest paid execs, and assume the highest roles in politics and law…but on average men are still by nature more inclined to risk and responsibility than women…therefore they attract somewhat higher total earnings.

The next question; is this difference hard wired into the choices each gender tends to make, or are they the result of conditioning? The best answer to this is of course… both. But I would suggest that the relative degree to which is the more important, varies very much according to the individual and the stage of life they are at. Coming back then to the original point, to suggest that women earn less because backward male employers like to discriminate against them, is a simplistic argument, overlying a flawed agenda, that fails to take into account that in the workplace, as they do in almost all other areas of life, men and women make different choices because they have different motives and priorities.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Ok, how many of you actually looked at the data? Perhaps that might give some hints as to what is going on? I’ve checked and it appears that although the average female/male hourly wage has gone from 85.8% to 82.0% (2004 to 2005), the median has only gone down from 87.3% to 85.3%, implying that high income earners (predominantly male) are getting more than their fair share of the increase. Continuing educational gains by women? Perhaps that is part of the cause: The biggest change from 04 to 05 average hourly wages were those with “Sixth form qualification” and “Other post-school qualification”, (23% and 12%), whereas those with “Bachelor or higher degree” the increase was only 1.4%!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Tane, not wishing to labour the point, but the evidence cited by Frog shows just the opposite of what you are suggesting to be the trend.

the income gap, that had been shrinking, has started to widen again.
and the various explanations offered on this thread regarding women’s career choices don’t seem plausible to me. why has the trend been reversed? or is it a one-year blip? but in the context of such a tight labour market and continuing educational gains by women, it seems anomalous.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

tochigi wrote;

“evidence, please! ”

A bloke I met in the pub told it to me. Just before the bit about aliens abducting him.

OK, you got me. In a post about demanding sufficient evidence to back a claim, I then produce none of my own. Touche.

All I have is anecdotal, and based on my experience in my own circle of friends and family. It’s enough to persuade me, but I can understand if it falls short of anyone else’s requirements. Does anyone else have the same belief, based on their own observations?

Maybe Stats NZ will ride to my rescue…….?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)