by Metiria Turei
The HandMirror and others are running a campaign against the Governments decision to can the pay parity roll out through the state sector. Its a no-brainer: women are still getting paid less than men in equivalent roles with equivalent experience. Surely the state sector is the first place where women are treated equitably in thier employment and pay- but clearly not under National.
Print out the Pay Parity Fax, or make up your own and send it to Tony Ryall and John Key. You might want to send it to National’s Women Affairs spokesperson too: Pansy Wong (04)817 6517.
Update: Here is ours Greens Pay Parity fax sent today.
Published in Justice & Democracy | Society & Culture by Metiria Turei on Fri, March 6th, 2009
Tags: , employment, HandMirror, income, pay parity, Ryall, women
More posts by Metiria Turei | more about Metiria Turei
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
- “women are still getting paid less than men in equivalent roles with equivalent experience”
Somehow I suspect there is rather more to it than you suggest, but in any case it should be pointed out that Capitalism automatically favours equality of pay simply as a matter of obtaining the best workforce at the best price and not handing an advantage to your competitors.
That’s another reason why as many functions as possible should be performed by the private sector.
But, if the story is true, it sounds like the state is overpaying men. They should take a cut.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
going back to the future..
..with national..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No Wat
Capitalism does nothing of the sort.
obtaining the best workforce at the best price and not handing an advantage to your competitors.
Nice thought, and if markets had no friction, information was symmetrical and people were utterly rational then it would be true. But as we live in a world (on planet Earth anyways) that not one of those 3 things is in general true another feature of capitalism comes into play.
That is you can do what you damn well want with what you have got (unless the “nanny state”, cough, makes up a rule to stop you) so men refer to employ men. Occupations that tend to have more men in get valued (read paid) more.
Also you will note that, generally, those who control get paid more than those who do. A silly silly state of affairs and the achillies heel of capitalism.
peace
W
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bliss,
I’m not actually sure what exact point you are making. Nothing you said changes my point that Capitalism punishes those who act on irrational prejudices. Profit-seeking businesses have the strong incentive to hire on nothing but merit, ignoring race, creed, sexuality, nationality, whatever. The state, by contrast, has no such incentive.
Hence the irony of your reply, forcefully stating the absolute need for state intervention in this matter, on this, a thread dealing with the (supposed) continual pay differentials in the public sector. And that, after a decade of an activist lefty government being in power.
It’s worth adding that everyone in the private sector (and in their private life of course) has the perfect right to hold and act on whatever irrational prejudices they like in the choices they make. The point being made here is that, under Capitalism, such behaviour has a cost.
Some countries, such as Malaysia I believe, still enforce racial preferences. And Jim Crow laws were created by your wonderful state. Just because the NZ government currently happens to advocate equality doesn’t mean it won’t one day use those same powers for or against specific minorities. That’s another advantage of Capitalism; unlike you advocates of statism, it doesn’t depend on the powerful state always being led by wise and decent politicians (oxymoron?). You people never stop to think, as you strip away individual rights and hand more and more powers to your state, what other politicians might one day do with them. Have you seen how well the British National Party is doing recently? Just think what it could and would do with just the powers the Labour party has created for itself in the last decade…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nice one wat….stick it up BLISSfully ignorant!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>so men refer to employ men
So what? It’s equally true to say “women prefer to hire women”, “Japanese prefer to hire Japanese” and “small fluffy creatures prefer to hire small fluffy creatures”. I suspect such bias only happens at the margins, anyway.
How on earth are you going to regulate that out? You can’t.
If an employer hires based on his or her prejudices, and not on skill level, then there is a real cost in doing so.
If women were underpaid, then businesses would hire mostly women. Great way to reduce the staff cost.
BUT THEY DON’T.
Get a clue, Bliss. Why to femos know nothing about basic economics?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP,
Answer; Because many are antropologists, or atleast have been exposed to a large amount of it. Thats enough to halve anyones I.Q..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wat and BP
Did I say the state could fix it?
My point is that although simple minded and elegant equilibrium models of the economy predict that “that Capitalism punishes those who act on irrational prejudices” it does nothing of the sort. Excepting catastrophes like what we are experiencing, where *everybody* is punished for the irrational greed and hubris of a few.
That is because the simple models are irredeemably wrong and do not fit the data.
It is not strange that Greens (Eg., me) know more about economics!
peace
W
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bliss,
You maintain that there are no consequences when a company irrationally discriminates, as against employing purely on merit.
Let’s say an NZ company does not want to employ any foreigners. It refuses to contract work out to India or China. How do you think it will fare compared to its competitors who blindly pursue profit?
I rather doubt it would still be around after even a couple of years; but according to you such behaviour will have no negative consequences. Hmm.
Or maybe a company doesn’t want to employ any ethnic minorities here in NZ. Its competitors will therefore be be able to pick from a greater pool of talent, and pay them less. But again, you say this has no effect on the prospects and profitability of the company.
- “It is not strange that Greens (Eg., me) know more about economics!”
What can I say.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bliss,
It is hard to deny that capitalism acts to punish the irrational.
Where a choice is made that is not the best choice for the given situation then there is a loss to the actor due to the opportunity cost of the action; it just so happens that ultimatly everyone acts irrationally and as a result the more irrationally one acts the more one is punished.
Looking at the present recession as an example the greatist victims are the general populas, specificly those whom are in borderline jobs or have large volumes of debt; that is primarily their fault, their irrationality and due to this they suffer. But, that aside, the recession was caused largeley due to overlending on the parts of banks and finance companies due to loose regulations of many government bodies, those finance companies suffer because of their irrational acts, the finance companies with better credit ratings have survived mostly unscathed except for the cumulative withdrawals that caused most of the effects of the reccesion, we shall put those companies in the same boat as the citizens whom did not have massive debt or borderline jobs. The politicians whom allowed such irrational regulations wont suffer much, but they too will be impacted in time, if not their wallets so much as their names and legacy. But the fault of the slack regulation lies not at the feat of the politicians but those whom elected and lobbied them, the people and the companies whom have now felt the burn. if the people had acted rationally, or less irrationally, and had chosen to elect politicians whom would of enacted to correct legislation, had lobbied the government to do so, and had convinced the other citizens that this was what was needed then none of this would have happened. Here in new zealand it is still our fault and we bear it accordingly for not lobbying our government to lobby and convince other populations and governments to enact changes and lobby the movers and shakers to impliment the needed changes.
Im not sure how clear that was, Ive not the time time nor tolerance to go through and edit it to make it more clear, but if you still follow me then, blah! its all our fault, we acted irrationally, and now we suffer. Those that were more irrational, eg with massie mortgages or borderline jobs, suffer more than others.
Capitalism does punish those whom act irrationally, the problem is that almost everyone, myself included, does act irrationally so the result is that the more irrational one is the
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I cannot work out what Sapient was trying to say. But to mention the current crises, it is an example where economic forces have punished the innocent. The workers at Ford, Chrysler and GM are going to suffer terribly for the irrational actions of the managers of those companies.
wat dabney has a good knowledge of the elementary equilibrium model. Firms compete is a market where price signals will force them to use the most cost effective methods of production. Problem is the equilibrium model does not fit the data.
I could describe the what modern economists think is wrong with the model. Information asymmetry, inappropriate investment horizons, misuse of economic power, state interference (pork barrels)…. But we are talking about pay equity.
There is plenty of research that shows that women are paid less than men, generally, for similar work. It mostly shows up in differences between professions that are dominated by women and professions that are dominated by men. And over time it is changing. 30 years ago a relative of mine, a woman, was paid half what her male colleges were getting as a computer programmer. That would be unlikely to happen now.
An up to date example. Boardrooms are dominated by men. Why is that? Is it true that the contribution that women can make to corporate governance is only a tenth of that men can make? Either that is true, women are worse because they are women, or wat’s model is wrong.
Having extensively studied wat’s simple equilibrium models I can answer that: It is the model that is wrong.
This is a silly discussion. The data is clear, women are valued less than men. That disagrees with a model that wat holds dear, so he says it is not true. But the data is clear! Do you believe the model or the data? Me, I believe the data!
That is what makes me a good economist! I allow the data to tell the story.
That is what makes Green policy good we use evidence, not wishful thinking, to develop it.
peace
W
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bliss,
You are making things over-complex. Forget your models.
I’m merely pointing out that you are handing your competitors a powerful advantage if you don’t blindly appoint solely on merit: Your workforce will be inferior and/or you will be paying them too much.
And let’s not forget, business are private enterprises: they have every right to discriminate in any way they choose.
- “Boardrooms are dominated by men. Why is that? Is it true that the contribution that women can make to corporate governance is only a tenth of that men can make? Either that is true, women are worse because they are women, or wat’s model is wrong.”
There is a third alternative: that there are legitimate reasons why women don’t reach the boardroom in large numbers.
For example, a lot of women, but virtually no men, leave work to start a family, then return to work when the children are old enough to go to school.
That is their right and their choice, but it must inevitably have big consequences for their careers. How can they hope to compete against men who haven’t taken a five year gap?
“The data is clear, women are valued less than men.”
I haven’t delved too deeply into pay inequality between the sexes, but from what I have seen the headline numbers that get quoted are often illusory and fall apart with a little examination.
(BTW, your link to “an up to date example” doesn’t work for me.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bliss,
i may be sober enough tomorrow to bother rewriting it in a manner which you may understand, but for now I will leave it be.
How, though, are the workers at Gm, Ford, etc in any way innocent? They are at fault for taking on a risky borderline job, they are at fault for not forseeing the problems any dip can see, they are at fault for not campeigning their government to introduce the correct legislation and they are at fault for not convincing others to do the same. They are guilty, they are irrational, it is their own F’ing fault.
Additionally, we have covered to death the issues of womens worth, we have established clearly that under the present social situation women are on average, and as such in general, of significantly higher risk than men and as such far less valuable in jobs that require high skills or longevity, eg on the boards. Not once has a decent arguemnt be put against this fact, not once has any arguement put up by frog, katie, and the like held its water on this matter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Like I said, this is a silly argument. I did not quite appreciate *how* silly!
You are making things over-complex. Forget your models.
Wat, you are using a model when you say “Capitalism automatically favours equality of pay simply as a matter of obtaining the best workforce at the best price and not handing an advantage to your competitors.” That is a model. I am pointing out the data does not support that model.
Trying a link again…
http://www.hrc.co.nz/hrc_new/hrc/cms/files/documents/28-Mar-2008_12-59-39_2008_Census_of_Womens_Participation.pdf
16.8% of women in “Top Legal Partnerships”, 19.9%
“University Professors and Associate Professors”
Then on boards… 5.07% “New Zealand Stock Market (NZSX)”, 5.73% “New Zealand Debt Market (NZDX) and 8.76% “New Zealand Stock Market (NZSX)”.
Why have women been more successful getting to the top of academia and the legal profession than in business generally? I suspect some irrational choices…
It is a bit mean of me to rip up stoned ramblings. I would love to hear this in a sober considered manner.
Pushing on…
” forseeing the problems any dip can see” I agree that from this distance some of us could tell that the USA car industry, with their insistence on building big expensive vehicles, was heading for trouble. (A similar thing happened to the brittish motor cycle industry in the 1960s) But I am an economist, and a Green, the workers in those plants were (are) working in industrial icons! These companies are the beating heart of the USA’s industrial system! That heart is in danger of stopping beating because of gross mismanagement over many years by the best and brightest. The high priests (and a few priestesses) of USA industrial might.
“it is their own F’ing fault.” Really? When not wasted is that still your opinion?
It is all about values. What Carmel Fisher would say about it? There are a lot of women in business in New Zealand (although a low percentage on boards). Ask them.
Also: Why are women apparently better suited to legal partnerships and academia than to boards? I would advise applying Occam’s razor.
peace
W
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>But I am an economist, and a Green,
Bliss, in your above capacity, are you able to point a layperson in the direction of a (fairly) simple introduction to the economics of Herman Daley et al (‘Steady-State Economics’). Also, what is your considered opinion of this ‘school’ of economics?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Here’s the summary of Daly’s ideas. They are very challenging.
http://www.steadystate.org/Files/Daly_UK__sust_dev_com_copy_with_ten_policy_addendum.pdf
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bliss,
Okay, lets try this in a sober and considered manner.
An individual makes choices as to what said individual will do or will not do. Naturally no individual can have complete knowledge and understanding of everything or even of a small subset of all things and as such an individual can never make choices knowing fully what will happen but an individual can still, esspecially in an age where information is so proliferated, make an educated guess should they make the effort to aquire sufficent knowledge and understanding. not holding enough knowledge or understanding to accuratly predict ones future prospects is in most instances an irrational act as the benefits of such predction will almost always outweigh the associated costs in the present day.
If an individual chooses to pursue employment with an industry which is colapsing or which has weak future prospects then that is an irrational act unless they make a net gain by doing so, opportunity costs taken into account. If they expect to make a net gain but fail to because their expectation is perverted due to too little knowledge or understanding then the act was irrational. This applies not just to choice of employment but to choice of investment, of lifestyle, of political ideology, and of almost everything we encounter in life.
If one fails to gain enough knowledge to understand and interprit the interactions of the economy then one, in most cases, is acting irrationally as their subsiquent ability to predict and make the better choices in any given circumstance becomes impaired. So in not understanding the economy, and due to this not forseeing the economic risk introduced due to the various financial institution regulations and subsidies to various economic endevours, one is unable to perceive that which needs to be and as such what one should work to enact.
So, if a worker at GM is hurt by the reccession it comes to be their fault for chosing to work at GM in a vulnerable job, it comes to be their fault for not lobbying the political ‘elete’ to introduce the correct changes, and it comes to be their fault in not convincing others around them to do what needs to be done.
Likewise is it with those whom did not choose to work for GM but chose to take on debts which they lacked sufficent ensured ability to back, chose to invest in unwise investments, and chose not to do what needed to be done and insted live in the common myopic world.
Now, in relation to the pay rates of women and of the representation across various occupations, I will say first that while I may argue for it I do not think it to be how things should be but how things are. I am primarily a scientist and not a activist social engeneer such as those which are becoming more proliferate throughout the social sciences, it is my job to explain and offer insight, not to change.
First, I would make a point that reality is irrelivant to decision making, it is perceptions of reality that count. It does not matter if a individual is in truth more or less capable than another individual but rather the perception of which is more capable. As an, somewhat humerous, example may I point to the first episode of the third season of “Yes, Minister” in which the minister seeks greater representation of women in the public service and whilst the head beurocrats all conclude that women should have greater representation they all present arguements based on common perceptions and steriotypes of women as to why they are insuitable to be employed in their departments; examples being emotions, pregnancy, and various other excuses of the boys club.
As an economist I am sure you are familar with the concept of utility. A female and a male of equal qualifications, skill, lifestyle, dedication, longevity, etc will none-the-less differ in that the females reproductive organs are a uterus and ovaries which entail a certain investment should a child result from an engagement whilst a male does not necasarily carry such an investment and would likley be far less affected, esspecially in terms of needed time off work, from such an occurance and as such the female carries a higher risk than the male unless she is infertile. Due to this higher risk many employers will prefer to employ the female, esspecially in jobs where longevity and skill are required.
This may not be just, it is based on steriotypes, though prudent ones, that females are far more likely to leave their jobs and suffer employment complications as the result of a pregnancy than a male.
Now, as you have noted, there are other factors, there is a very real predujuce in some work places from male bosses against female employees due to ingrained stigma, steriotypes, and mens clubs. This phenomina is very prevalent in female run workplaces too, mostly because of resistance to the male version.
Capitalism does punish those whom make irrational choices, if you hire a less than ideal worker for some reason with no bearing on the job then your productivity is lower than what it may have been, though to some bigots this may be worth it, and if that is the case they have every right to do so; its their company.
Ive lost my train of thought, so I shall get on to addressing the discrepancies in employment rates in industry and in academia.
In terms fo the stock market, it is a boys club, it is likley affected by stigmas and far of emotionality, etc, the boys will select boys. however the stock market is also a very charged place, I rememmber several female politicians remarking that to be in parliment they had to sacrifice themselves and become males, prehaps the same could be said of the stock markets, prehaps since there is not the political benefits less females choose to make that sacrifice; to look at the real difference between academia and the stock market one must also look at the percentage representations within the areas; what percentage of traders are female? is the discrepanciy as large as it seems?
Femanism saw a massive move of women into the traditionally male domain of the law, one would suspect that as more women passed the bar they gradually overcame the steriotypes and became more represented in the higher echelons; it may be interesting to compare the predominance of female lawers in comparison with the top layer with the predominance of female traders in relation with the top layer of the traders.
Re: academia, women are prevalent. In my department there are many many female lecturers and reserchers, mostly in the feminist anti-positivist side fo things, it is only natural that they become more represented in the higher levels. It is also notable that a university is a political place, if women wernt represented there would be grounds for political activism and sue to this there si a motive for such representation. Addditionally, in academia one can disappear and rear a child for a year with no real cost to the functioning fo the department and due to this the pregnancy bias may not function.
if i were to make a suggestion about how to bring about pay pariety it would be along these lines;
. or allow the companies to recuperate a portion fo teh costs from teh government.
Make a portion of maternity leave only usable by the mother, an equal portion, parternity leave, only availible to teh other partner and a portion availible to eaither.
Address the issues of rights, many people feel that women now ahve more rights than men and because fo this there will likley be a backlash. remove the women only schollorships; positive-dsicrimination si still discrimination.
Make legal no-pregnancy clauses in contracts.
Remove the requirement to retain employees whom get pregnant, this reduces the risk; woudl probally reduce the birth rate too
Occam’s Razor has little place in the social world, it is only good for grand theories but society must be delt with in all its complexity. That said, one may reduce society to the interaction of many many small and simple principles, and that is how i treat it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>summary of Daly’s ideas. They are very challenging.
Well, they certainly are challenging to me! But very interesting and thought-provoking.
From my cursory read I found several salient points, for example:
‘In the end economics is religion.’
and:
‘For many countries net immigration has become a larger source of population growth than natural increase. Immigration may temporarily ease the age structure problem, but the steady-state population requires that births plus in-migrants equal deaths plus out-migrants. It is hard to say which is more politically incorrect, birth limits or immigration limits? Many prefer denial of arithmetic to facing either one. ‘
THanks for the Link, Valis.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“So, if a worker at GM is hurt by the reccession it comes to be their fault for chosing to work at GM in a vulnerable job, it comes to be their fault for not lobbying the political ‘elete’ to introduce the correct changes, and it comes to be their fault in not convincing others around them to do what needs to be done.”
That worker at GM was hurt by their union pushing for far more than was reasonable back in the 1960s. The labour costs at the Big Three were double that of the Japanese competitors, and these were at American plants (I would hate to see how much a Big Three worker was earning in comparison with a Japanese car worker). Had the union been far more reasonable back then, then we would never have landed in a situation where the Big Three had $2500 more expenses per vehicle than the Japanese car manufacturers, a situation which meant that every GM car sold made a loss.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
John-ston,
Absolutly, but that is one of the reasons why it was a bad idea to pursue employment there; it does not absolve the worker of fault.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Actually, the last time I looked young unskilled women in New Zealand were paid less than young unskilled men.
So are we going to legislate to reduce those young women’s wages to match those of men?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Owen
Less-is-more?
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bliss,
The observation that businesses who hire other than on merit are doing themselves economic harm is not a “model” but an axiomatic truth; something that necessarily follows.
“I am pointing out the data does not support that model (sic).”
So you still maintain that an NZ company which does not blindly follow the profit motive and which, through some nationalistic prejudice, does not offshore much of its work-intensive operations to India and China, is not putting itself at an economic disadvantage?
I’m glad you’re not investing my money!
I quote your earlier statement: “That is what makes me a good economist! I allow the data to tell the story.”
Unfortunately, it is not nearly as simple as that – by a long, long way. A good economist is someone who knows how to interpet the data, as opposed to just waving it around.
For example, Maori children on average are underachievers at school compared to whites. But I suspect you would not go around telling people that the data “tells the story” that Maori are stupid. You understand that the story is a whole lot more complex than that.
However, when it comes to the gender pay-gap, because this time it happens to suit your prejudices and your agenda, you are happy to tout such raw data.
As I said before, there are entirely legitimate reasons why women are paid less than men on average, and don’t get promoted to the top positions in such numbers. For example, many women leave the workforce for a few years to start a family, and a lot more women work part-time compared to men. Try and think of some others.
What you have to do is come back to us with the results of an analysis which identifies and adjusts for all these confounding factors: at the moment, all you are doing is the equivalent of going round saying Maori children are stupid.
- “Why have women been more successful getting to the top of academia and the legal profession than in business generally? I suspect some irrational choices…Why are women apparently better suited to legal partnerships and academia than to boards? I would advise applying Occam’s razor.”
Well, think about it.
When it comes to academia, there are two glaringly obvious factors which immediately spring to mind. The first is the fact that women are significantly over-represented in the teaching profession. The second is that, unlike everything we have been talking about, academia does not consist of competing profit-seeking enterprises; it is a state monopoly. Since the market discipline which punishes irrational discrimination does not operate in this case, you are actually making my case for me by highlighting this discrepancy: The government, not facing any competition, is free to discriminate however it wishes. It is the exception which proves the rule.
As for the example of the legal profession, I don’t see any great mystery or any great significance in it. You ask “why are women apparently better suited to legal partnerships…than to boards” and the simple answer, surely, is that, like the thousands of IT contractors who have chosen to operate through a one-man limited companies, so it is a common and practical option for lawyers to set themselves up and operate as partnerships. Unlike becoming a board member, it does not imply that someone has “got to he top of the legal profession” just because they operate as a partnership.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)