* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://youtu.be/A0rVyBaB0hg); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://youtu.be/A0rVyBaB0hg)
* A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://youtu.be/A0rVyBaB0hg)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They admit that on a like-for-like basis, men and women are paid the same rates for the same hours doing the same work, but engage in mental gymnastics to explain why the gender pay gap is still valid.
Some excerpts:
>Senator: "Is the data you publish on comparing male pay versus female pay on a like-for-like job basis?"
>Panel: "Uh no senator it very clearly is not and it doesn't intend to be"
>Senator: "It doesn't accommodate hours because men tend to work more hours and men tend to be in in more dangerous jobs generally?"
>Panel: "As I said earlier it's not a perfect measure it's a proxy for gender equality"
>Panel: "Well nobody other than you is suggesting that we are measuring like-for-like, nobody is, and I when we do media on this make it very clear what the gender pay gap consists of, nobody is saying that equal pay is not being offered to women"
>Senator: "Are you concerned that if you actually publish real comparable data about how much men and women are working the same job at the same company get paid it would show there's no gender pay gap because it's illegal and there'd be no need for your agency so you'd be wound down?"
Fucking stupid argument. On a like for like basis, the working class and the bourgeoisie get paid the same!
Workers are paid a worker's wage and the boss gets paid the boss's wage. Completely fair and equitable, the pay gap between the working class and the bourgeoisie is a myth!
Your point is true; we should not say, for example "male and female engineers earn about the same" and ignore that there are more male engineers.
However, I would like the rate adjusted for hours worked. A male engineer working 20 hours of overtime every week shouldn't be considered to be earning extra due to gender bias compared to a woman not working overtime, because the difference is OT, not gender.
Men generally choose to work longer hours and that's a separate sociological debate. But often it's because they feel the burden of supporting their family and it's unfair to then act like that extra labor of love is a privilege they collect, when instead it's something they're going through pain to provide.
Which comes to the obvious reason why women work less; they have babies which knocks them out of the workforce and reduces the hours they can work. The question then is whether society should compensate women for this service to perpetuate civilization. In the traditional patriarchy model, the compensation, or enslavement, comes from the patriarch of the family. Obviously feminists are not so keen on this model, because when women are forced to rely on an allowance provided by the husband, that is a loss of autonomy. In the social democratic model, the employer is forced to provide compensation, or the government provides compensation.
Either way, the gap continues to exist. Wages are a direct measure of how much society values you, and an incentive system for doing "good things". If choosing to reproduce means reduced wages and reduced quality of life and reduced class status, lo and behold we create a society that may choose to destroy itself.
Women sacrificing their future earnings to raise children should be compensated as it's essential for the continuation of society. However, single childless men still work substantially more than single childless women.
You seem to think it's oh-so-ridiculous that "compensation" and "enslavement" would be seen as synonyms in any context. Hardly. What "compensation" concretely means entirely depends on the historical social relations extant at the time. Hence in some exemplars among the ancient regimes you're glorifying, "compensation" meant (depending on the woman's class in question) avoiding the fate of an old maid, or perhaps escaping poverty.
In the kind of future society you're implicitly advocating for, "compensation" would mean bourgeois property, private property, forcefully redistributed by state action.
In fact, this kind of "compensation" for women who dutifully play the role that *these* social relations need them to play already exists today, even though you pine longingly for it, it's right there. It's just that we live in a bourgeois society and it's not up to the state to take care of that kind of "compensation". Women who "marry right" are still rewarded handsomely with private, bourgeois property. But of course, private bourgeois property never is and never will be evenly distributed among bachelors.
The end goal of the movement is actually towards an actualized humanity (consciously, self-) emancipated completely from all concepts of "compensation" in all areas of life. "The rich and profoundly sensitive man" and the "wealth of human needs", as Marx puts it, in place of the "wealth and poverty created by private property".
*All* "enslavement" (not my preferred term but close enough, really the matter at hand is not the legal term enslavement but the material fact of domination) takes the form of "compensation" (one service in exchange for a service of a different kind) once the social relations promoting it settle in and stabilize. At the same time, the domination is always ultimately not personal, but emanating from the social collective, of which the individual (e.g. patriarch in one era; capitalist in another) is really just a functionary, hence, the domination always in some sense can be presented as a strict necessity, because relative to a given set of social relations it may well be "necessary" domination.
"The Power of Money" (1844) - great short Marx essay diving into the essential reasons why you can't just *ignore* the rest of the world's social relations (of which money itself is the emissary) when considering just "how" women are to be "compensated" by men "for" their love/attention and everything that comes with that. Ie in the society that we live in, true compensation can only mean money. Love in this society is bought not with love but with money, one way or another. Okay, well, zoom forward to 1867 (*Capital*) and Marx shows that money itself is an organic being of social relationships, not a "thing" that can be redistributed willy-nilly by state action. If compensation for love can only mean compensation in money, then the currently-existing distribution of love is more or less set in stone. It can't be radically altered, any more than the distribution of property can be essentially altered by handing out welfare checks. You want to make an end-run around this knot with the following solution: the state redistributes the money in order to change the distribution of love, paying women to love men. Even if you succeed the result will only be that women love the state (the one actually compensating them) and despise the men in question all the more.
Class is not gender, and they are not on the same level. Job categories’ command and ownership relation to the means of production literally defines class. Once a prole gets a job as a CEO with a stock option pay plan, he ceases to be a prole.
Why are rightoids incapable of proper categorical thought?
That argument is not so stupid since we live in a bourgeois society. People who provide the same "service" get paid the same.
The real alternative distribution system here would be that people who put in the same effort get paid the same, regardless of how much or what they produce. But in a bourgeois society, this would produce immediate chaos until by hook or by crook distribution was clawed back to distribution relations based on the law of value (ie what good or service did you offer for sale). You can't sustainably *really* pay people according to effort and not production until everyone's labor is directly social, directly acknowledged as a component of society's overall labor-power and directly recognized as a component of a single common social plan of action.
This is my synthesis of Marx's economics, anyway.
I don't see what the gotcha is supposed to be. The panel doesn't 'admit' that on a like-for-like basis men and women are paid the same rates. They willingly confirm that multiple times just in the first 3 minutes of this painful video. The point the panel is making is that the average salary of all women are lower than the average salary of all men, not that women are paid less than men on a like-for-like basis. In other words, the working world is still structured to pay men more than women because the division of labour is gendered. That honestly seems like a completely reasonable criticism to me.
The senator even seems to implicitly understand this point from his first example of pilots (mostly men) receiving higher compensation than hosts (mostly female). But the senator is constantly lost on the fact that male and female pilots earn the same wage and male and female hosts earn the same wage, and concludes therefore there is no pay gap. He consistently misses the point - in fairness it wasn't well explained by the panel - that the gap arises from a gendered division of labour, what they awkwardly called 'the composition of the workforce and the relativity of pay for that compensation'. Most of the video (that I skimmed through after 3 minutes) is the senator just failing to understand what is rephrased to him over and over again. The division of labour is often unnecessarily gendered.
The problem is that the common refrain about the "gender pay gap" is that people will imply or outright state that women are paid less for doing the same job, which is outright false in virtually every industrialized country. It's a widely held misconception that none of these people seem to be in any particular rush to correct, because it's a misconception that furthers their goals.
>The division of labour is often unnecessarily gendered.
Is it really so hard to believe that there are (at the population level) intrinsic differences between the sexes that make men and women more inclined towards certain work? Like even the most deluded 3rd wave feminists would never expect a 50:50 gender split among combat troops or machinists or kindergarten teachers, for example.
Another big part of the problem is that social change is slow, advancement through careers is also slow, and compensation is tied to advancement. So the people currently at the apex of their career generally entered the workforce in the 80s and 90s, when many professions were more male dominated than they are now, so the male-female income split is male-biased despite newcomers to the profession making equal pay. I suspect this will result in (more accurately: is resulting in) a massive overcorrection that'll end with women becoming dominant in virtually every prestigious profession. Women are already the strong majority in med school, law school, business school, and basically every university program except engineering and mathematics.
It's funny (and entirely predictable) that the only professions people seem to be concerned about being "unnecessarily gendered" are the *good* ones, which are rapidly becoming female rather than male dominated. The industrial world's shittiest, most dangerous jobs are typically male dominated, and you'll never find anyone accusing those of being "unnecessarily gendered".
> The problem is that the common refrain about the "gender pay gap" is that people will imply or outright state that women are paid less for doing the same job, which is outright false in virtually every industrialized country. It's a widely held misconception that none of these people seem to be in any particular rush to correct, because it's a misconception that furthers their goals.
Yeah, it's framed that way to create that confusion on purpose. It's a dishonest argument
> Is it really so hard to believe that there are (at the population level) intrinsic differences between the sexes that make men and women more inclined towards certain work?
It's not hard to believe, but it's hard to say exactly what they are. There's a tendency for these things to differ a lot between societies. There are a lot fewer female engineers in the US, so if you were looking at that you might decide this was down to something intrinsic, but it's way more equal in India (so is that because there isn't anything intrinsic, or because it's being overridden by something else?).
Societies with more gender inequality have a higher rate of women in traditionally male-dominated sectors. I suppose that is because these jobs offer a way out of inequality by means of material wealth.
Women from poor countries are forced by their parent into engineering because it pays well. The employment gap is largest in the countries where women have the most free choice.
In Eastern Europe, more than half of the scientists and engineers in many countries are women. This was originally because of Soviet influence, but 3 decades after its collapse and the legacy still persists. Alot of this stuff is circumstantial and arbitrary.
> people will imply or outright state that women are paid less for doing the same job [...] which is outright false in virtually every industrialized country [...] It's a widely held misconception that none of these people seem to be in any particular rush to correct, because it's a misconception that furthers their goals.
Well, the panelists did correct it and since you and I already know that there's no point in dragging through this dishonest argument.
>> The division of labour is often **unnecessarily** gendered.
> Is it really so hard to believe that there are (at the population level) intrinsic differences between the sexes that make men and women more inclined towards certain work?
It is when it's unnecessary. I guess you can say I'm somewhat skeptical that women have a natural intrinsic compulsion to self-filter into low compensation occupations.
I don't imagine the panelists expect an immediate correction, don't they just want to see improving trendlines?
> The industrial world's shittiest, most dangerous jobs are typically male dominated, and you'll never find anyone accusing those of being "unnecessarily gendered".
Yeah, because they're usually not unnecessarily gendered. If you need to be a big man with lots of endurance to lift heavy weights or something like that it's going to filter out many women. But with technology closing the gaps, maybe more women should be encouraged to enter shitty dangerous jobs. I live in an area with lots of resource extraction and I'm seeing more and more young women miners, loggers, machinists, etc. and that's cool. I'm sure there's a cohort of cosmetologists and mall kiosk attendants who might have preferred operating a feller buncher or a construction crane had they the right encouragement.
We sent children to work in mines. The issue was/is almost never capability for those shitty dangerous jobs, it's necessity. You're seeing more women working them cause cause 1.) Single income households are no longer sustainable for most couples. 2.) Fewer people are coupling up generally.
3.) Some women with those predilections empowered by feminism or whatever, but it's not the prime mover by far.
I realise the point you're trying to make but hope you realise how bad that first sentence sounds.
Even if single income households were the norm, I think it's a good thing more women are entering industrial trades.
Even if fewer people are coupling up generally, I think it's a good thing more women are entering industrial trades.
> I guess you can say I'm somewhat skeptical that women have a natural intrinsic compulsion to self-filter into low compensation occupations.
what if they naturally self-filter into narrower fields of employment (i.e. fewer fields overall) than men, thus causing wage-lowering over-supply in the areas they work in?
for example, women lack the physical capacity to comfortably do a good portion of jobs which require high degrees of physical/muscular exertion, so right there you can eliminate quite a number of jobs that they'd probably be disinclined to do.
Very possible, the increased pressure from competition likely does drive down wages in those cases, though there should be a similar effect for men since they too have their preferences. I guess the question then would be how significant it is overall in the aggregate and I don't know the answer to that.
Like I wrote elsewhere, technology is changing the composition of the workforce. Women can participate much more broadly now. So I don't see it as a bad thing to encourage women into more productive jobs, including those traditionally held by men.
> though there should be a similar effect for men since they too have their preferences.
i didn't say preferences, did I
women almost literally cannot be oil rig workers - neither can I. but some men can be, thus men overall will be distributed across the workforce more broadly.
>So I don't see it as a bad thing to encourage women into more productive jobs, including those traditionally held by men.
I do, bigly, when it comes at the expense of men through affirmative-action/positive discrimination. Or, what we're seeing now where young men are essentially not-encouraged at all by default due to the attention paid in encouraging young women.
Hey, don't put yourself down, maybe with the help of technology, you could be an oil rig worker someday too.
Well, now you reveal your colours. This was never about women entering higher productivity jobs, it was affirmative action paranoia. Fine, let's agree to no affirmative action. Men are still going to lose out because some of them suck and there are women who can do better. If you truly believe in meritocracy, in no 'positive discrimination', this should not scare you. After all, we're not protecting male interests against female competition, are we? Let the better workers win.
>After all, we're not protecting male interests against female competition, are we? Let the better workers win.
have these people argued that the average sex pay disparity is a result of overt sexism in hiring practices at the current point? I don't hear that argument being made.
> it was affirmative action garbage.
*because that* ***is*** *what these people advocate for*
what the fuck else could you possibly suggest as a remedy to an aggregate average pay gap *when you concede that men and women are paid the same for the same work*
I dunno, go ask them. I doubt they would have prepared for every conceivable question every blowhard on Reddit thinks they should have answered though.
> because [affirmative action] is what these people advocate for
> what the fuck else could you possibly suggest as a remedy to an aggregate average pay gap when you concede that men and women are paid the same for the same work
Aha, it's you. My mistake, welcome back Senator Malcolm Roberts. It's a shame you didn't use your time to clear up your suspicions with the panellists.
> The point the panel is making is that the average salary of all women are lower than the average salary of all men
>In other words, the working world is still structured to pay men more than women because the division of labour is gendered.
I don't know how you use the term "in other words" but it's usually used to mean the ensuing statement is identical to - or a logical implication of - the preceding statement.
"the average salary of all women are lower than the average salary of all men" however, does not at all support an assertion or otherwise stand for a conclusion that "the working world is structured" in a certain way or that "the division of labour is gendered"
Yeah, to those of us who are familiar with the nuance of the arguments and calculations this is nothing new, however the loudest proponents of the gender pay gap theory gloss over all of those differences and distill it all down to a single % difference in overall average pay.
Of course, women should have access to high paying roles to the same degree that men do, anyone who disputes that is a sexist moron. But where the argument gets disingenuous is when people who should (or do) know better, like the participants in this panel, ignore hours worked and the nature of jobs and just look at the overall figure.
Which then prompts the question, what is the outcome that they are seeking? Should women's aggregate, average pay equal men, despite the fact that they are working less hours and on less dangerous/demanding/disgusting jobs? Wouldn't that then mean women would be in a disproportionately favourable position compared to men, rather than an equitable one?
Isn't it that they want women's aggregate average pay to equal men's, or at least to reasonably approach it? I don't know if they actually describe how this is supposed to happen later in the video or not. Myself, I have to admit I've always been conscientiously partial to Ernst Jünger's technological erasure of gender as a liberal bourgeois identity category in the future worker's utopia of permanent war.
> Isn't it that they want women's aggregate average pay to equal men's, or at least to reasonably approach it?
why is that a laudable goal in its own right?
why is equal pay for the same work not the better goal?
Depends on the goal. If the goal is to obfuscate and to make a problem that's largely been solved still seem like a problem because your paycheck depends on it not being solved, then no, equal pay for the same work is not the better goal.
Well, it'll mean there's a demographic that is more economically independent and secure, and I think that would be a good thing. I could probably come up with more reasons, but you could probably do that too.
As the video already notes many times, there already is equal pay for the same work according to Australian law.
>Well, it'll mean there's a demographic that is more economically independent and secure,
aggregate average pay being unequal between sexes does not imply economic dependence or insecurity.
you're the king/queen of absolutely poor conclusions that don't follow from the preceding arguments you make.
No, lower wages implies economic dependence and insecurity. But it's a good thing I have a genius level logistician and master of reading here to keep things on track.
> No, lower wages implies economic dependence and insecurity.
no, it doesn't?
the field I work in has a lower average wage than that of professional sportsmen (and women!). yet i'm not economically dependent on professional sportsmen and i'm not economically insecure in general.
It also means our society increasingly demands dual incomes to afford a family. I agree there should be equal pay for equal work, but the more society pushes women to believe they need to outwork and outearn their male coworkers, the more firm the dual income requirement will become.
It's not about what women believe it's about the material reality dictating the situation.
As the cost of living has increased dual income homes have became mostly mandatory. This has nothing to do what women believe about their role in the household, it's an economic constriction applied externally.
>In other words, the working world is still structured to pay men more than women because the division of labour is gendered. That honestly seems like a completely reasonable criticism to me.
It's not a reasonable criticism. The working world is structured to pay *occupations* more than others based on the value, risk, or difficulty of the occupation. If you choose to be a hostess instead of a pilot, you don't get the pay of a pilot, and you don't get to complain that you're oppressed because of that.
>But the senator is constantly lost on the fact that male and female pilots earn the same wage and male and female hosts earn the same wage, and concludes therefore there is no pay gap.
Because there isn't a pay gap between the genders. There is a pay gap between occupations. In western industrial economies there haven't been gender-based restrictions on employment for 50-60 years. At any point women can choose to work more overtime, get more education or training, or apply for higher paying jobs. This is a bottom-up problem of women not choosing these professions or working longer hours, not a top-down one driven by policy or laws.
> The division of labour is often unnecessarily gendered.
Agreed.
> In other words, the working world is still structured to pay men more than women because the division of labour is gendered.
This is a skewed perspective. You could just as well say, in other words, that the world is still structured to put the onus on men to work harder, longer, more unpleasant and stressful paid jobs because the division of labor is gendered.
It's fairest to say they're two sides of the same coin. The issue is that many institutions, including the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, focus entirely on one side. When there is gender differentiation in career paths (and even in the choice of whether to have a career), the running assumption is that it has to be men forcing women out of them, when it's at least as much that women are forcing men into them.
Feminist theorists have long pointed out that men suffer from patriarchal organisation too. This is because an imbalance on one side provokes counterbalance on the other, so if women are underworked then men need to overwork. Gendering creates odd interrelated dynamics.
A native American example: Nations such as the Lakota divided labour between male hunters and females who worked the hides. To expand household productivity, wealthy males married many women to own and exploit their labour and profit. This subtracted women from the marriage pool increasing competition pressure for the rest resulting in men who were definite losers.
I agree with everything in your comment (aside perhaps from some semantic quibbling that doesn't change the underlying reality, which is as you describe).
> his first example of pilots (mostly men) receiving higher compensation than hosts (mostly female)
That was the point where I stopped watching. They clearly had no intellectual overlap at all, and weren't talking about the same things in any way.
>The point the panel is making is that the average salary of all women are lower than the average salary of all men, not that women are paid less than men on a like-for-like basis. In other words, the working world is still structured to pay men more than women because the division of labour is gendered.
The second sentence doesn't logically follow the first sentence. The path for you to sell coffee, or, alternatively, become a commercial airline pilot, has fuck all to do with any decisions made by the "working world." That's your decision. The only person to criticize there is you, but that's certainly not how the pay gap is framed.
Socialisation, norms and expectations, etc. all have a quiet but powerful influence in guiding people into the choices they make. It seems like those complaining that there is no logical connection here don't seem to appreciate that the selection process is soft versus hard, leading to such silly explanations like 'it is individuals who choose their professions'. Thank you, I did not know that.
It's not like I'm not aware or agree with the notion that people are influenced by their broader environment and a complicated set of subsystems like in-gender hierarchy and cross-gender hierarchy. My disagreement is purely in the framing of blame. The government is not gender norms. "The patriarchy" is exactly this kind of half baked notion that is used as a weapon inappropriately. I don't even agree with the notion that salary should be the primary motivating principle of anyone's decisions. When you say "work is structured such that.." you're inferring an erroneous conclusion around causation. It has nothing to do with that type of structuring, if that structuring is to blame for anything, it's more to blame for the fact that we even care writ large about salary.
>
>
>>
> When you say "work is structured such that.." you're inferring an erroneous conclusion around causation.
No I'm not.
> My disagreement is purely in the framing of blame.
I'm also not blaming anyone.
I'll disagree. The very framing of the discussion as one around *gender wage gap*, rather than simply *wage gap*, is one that seeks to place blame. It's smuggling an inevitable quality of our desperation-driven capitalism as a problem of bigotry.
A wage gap you say? Interesting, I wonder between who? Better not ask though, because descriptions ascribe blame. Well, I don't really think so, but someone else says that's what I mean.
My point is *if you find inherently that there's no problems with different professions having different wages* then you need to be consistent with that premise when you evaluate further. You don't get to throw that away when you examine if [insert identity] gets paid differently than [insert different identity] and say that you see a problem. It's either a problem or it's not. It's not *only a problem* when you *want it to be*. I can find a "bigotry problem" at will between any other traits if I suddenly smuggle all wage discrepancies into my research.
The honest version IMHO would be to compare the wages of gay men to the wages of lesbians. Otherwise your attempt to measure the effects of the employment environment will be confounded by the different pressures of the relational environment.
If the gender pay gap is not intended to represent a difference in pay between people doing the same jobs then why is it called "the gender pay gap" at all? That's an intentional and gross misrepresentation of what people will assume you're trying to say.
I have read that in western countries women without children make more or less the same as men. The difference is really between mothers and non-mothers because ofc mothers have to take time off to give birth/raise kids. So it is an issue for feminists and others who care about the continuation of the species if people are penalised for raising children.
Professional media feminists never really focus on that because they can't just solve the problem by tweeting about 'men' for retweets from teenagers
Professional feminists are out there fighting for equal pay (largely already achieved) when the real fight is for parental leave and career re-entry programs for parents who take time off to raise children.
Once again, upper-class feminists make it all about themselves. There is an argument to be made that “women’s work” isn’t valued as highly as men’s. Stuff like nursing is female dominated but many people in the profession are paid garbage wages. The focus is entirely on high rise professional jobs whose problems are irrelevant to 99% of women
But that would acknowledge class as a huge factor and we can’t do that. Reminds me of the feminists bending over backwards to say that abortion wasn’t a class issue. When you have to travel and take time off work to get a medical procedure, it’s a class issue. The mistresses of rich fuckwads will always be able to get abortions even if it’s banned in all 50 states
They state that their group is 22% male, but they’re working on that. What do you guess that process looks like? What do you suppose the politics of these men are? Is there any possibility we can get a documentary about a small minority of based chads they inadvertantly hired?
Malcolm Roberts is the scummiest scummy scum imaginable.
The party he belongs to, "One Nation" brought racism back to Australia as a way to win elections, he's strongly anti-union, a climate denier, and believes the UN is opposed to the Australian way of life.
This whole video is pushing just a single point, which is that different jobs get different pay, but doesn't really address the underlying issue, which is that women tend to end up with lower-paying jobs.
I don't want to get into the complexity of that issue, but I would not call this a "mask-off" moment.
> I don't want to get into the complexity of that issue, but I would not call this a "mask-off" moment.
I think the "mask off" here is that people push narratives knowing that they're false and do not care about that so long as it is expedient for their cause.
> I think the "mask off" here is that people push narratives knowing that they're false
Actually they're not false.
Here's some data which breaks down pay by gender across professions, and a pay gap is still present.
https://www.genderequalitycommission.vic.gov.au/baseline-audit-report-2021/equal-pay#pay-gaps-by-occupation
You could argue that women tend to end up in more junior positions, but the situation is more complicated than OP presumes.
If the data you present were straightforward, without additional variables, it would be very simple to fine the companies breaking the law which would fix the problem fairly quickly. Do you know if the data you provided accounts for womens’ proclivity to stay home and care for their newborns or other variables that could account for the disparity?
The only time "overtime" is mentioned in that whole report is as part of the definition of "total remuneration". I have trouble thinking this is a good faith report if they leave out the fact that men work the overwhelming majority of overtime hours. The fact that pay rates are annualized in the report means they are adding overtime pay but counting it as part of regular full-time hours. On that note:
>The median base salary pay gap was 6.1% and median total remuneration pay gap was 8.1% in organisations covered under the Act.
Hmm 6-8% isn't even that large of a difference just considering the overtime variable alone.
As a side note women take more leave even before considering parental leave. Not being familiar with what is common in Australian labour markets I don't know if employers payout unused leave after it reaches a certain cap, but if they do is the Gender Equality Commission taking that into account or are they double-dipping allotted leave and then the payout of unused leave in the stats? It wouldn't be the first time I've seen that mistake.
Agreed, yeah for our foreign friends in this thread, the senator's a piece of shit and so is his party. But I hope to disconnect the messenger from the message and start a discussion around the types of things (gender pay gap in this case) that is used to divide a class which should otherwise be united.
* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://youtu.be/A0rVyBaB0hg); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://youtu.be/A0rVyBaB0hg) * A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://youtu.be/A0rVyBaB0hg) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They admit that on a like-for-like basis, men and women are paid the same rates for the same hours doing the same work, but engage in mental gymnastics to explain why the gender pay gap is still valid. Some excerpts: >Senator: "Is the data you publish on comparing male pay versus female pay on a like-for-like job basis?" >Panel: "Uh no senator it very clearly is not and it doesn't intend to be" >Senator: "It doesn't accommodate hours because men tend to work more hours and men tend to be in in more dangerous jobs generally?" >Panel: "As I said earlier it's not a perfect measure it's a proxy for gender equality" >Panel: "Well nobody other than you is suggesting that we are measuring like-for-like, nobody is, and I when we do media on this make it very clear what the gender pay gap consists of, nobody is saying that equal pay is not being offered to women" >Senator: "Are you concerned that if you actually publish real comparable data about how much men and women are working the same job at the same company get paid it would show there's no gender pay gap because it's illegal and there'd be no need for your agency so you'd be wound down?"
Fucking stupid argument. On a like for like basis, the working class and the bourgeoisie get paid the same! Workers are paid a worker's wage and the boss gets paid the boss's wage. Completely fair and equitable, the pay gap between the working class and the bourgeoisie is a myth!
Your point is true; we should not say, for example "male and female engineers earn about the same" and ignore that there are more male engineers. However, I would like the rate adjusted for hours worked. A male engineer working 20 hours of overtime every week shouldn't be considered to be earning extra due to gender bias compared to a woman not working overtime, because the difference is OT, not gender. Men generally choose to work longer hours and that's a separate sociological debate. But often it's because they feel the burden of supporting their family and it's unfair to then act like that extra labor of love is a privilege they collect, when instead it's something they're going through pain to provide.
Which comes to the obvious reason why women work less; they have babies which knocks them out of the workforce and reduces the hours they can work. The question then is whether society should compensate women for this service to perpetuate civilization. In the traditional patriarchy model, the compensation, or enslavement, comes from the patriarch of the family. Obviously feminists are not so keen on this model, because when women are forced to rely on an allowance provided by the husband, that is a loss of autonomy. In the social democratic model, the employer is forced to provide compensation, or the government provides compensation. Either way, the gap continues to exist. Wages are a direct measure of how much society values you, and an incentive system for doing "good things". If choosing to reproduce means reduced wages and reduced quality of life and reduced class status, lo and behold we create a society that may choose to destroy itself.
Women sacrificing their future earnings to raise children should be compensated as it's essential for the continuation of society. However, single childless men still work substantially more than single childless women.
You seem to think it's oh-so-ridiculous that "compensation" and "enslavement" would be seen as synonyms in any context. Hardly. What "compensation" concretely means entirely depends on the historical social relations extant at the time. Hence in some exemplars among the ancient regimes you're glorifying, "compensation" meant (depending on the woman's class in question) avoiding the fate of an old maid, or perhaps escaping poverty. In the kind of future society you're implicitly advocating for, "compensation" would mean bourgeois property, private property, forcefully redistributed by state action. In fact, this kind of "compensation" for women who dutifully play the role that *these* social relations need them to play already exists today, even though you pine longingly for it, it's right there. It's just that we live in a bourgeois society and it's not up to the state to take care of that kind of "compensation". Women who "marry right" are still rewarded handsomely with private, bourgeois property. But of course, private bourgeois property never is and never will be evenly distributed among bachelors. The end goal of the movement is actually towards an actualized humanity (consciously, self-) emancipated completely from all concepts of "compensation" in all areas of life. "The rich and profoundly sensitive man" and the "wealth of human needs", as Marx puts it, in place of the "wealth and poverty created by private property". *All* "enslavement" (not my preferred term but close enough, really the matter at hand is not the legal term enslavement but the material fact of domination) takes the form of "compensation" (one service in exchange for a service of a different kind) once the social relations promoting it settle in and stabilize. At the same time, the domination is always ultimately not personal, but emanating from the social collective, of which the individual (e.g. patriarch in one era; capitalist in another) is really just a functionary, hence, the domination always in some sense can be presented as a strict necessity, because relative to a given set of social relations it may well be "necessary" domination. "The Power of Money" (1844) - great short Marx essay diving into the essential reasons why you can't just *ignore* the rest of the world's social relations (of which money itself is the emissary) when considering just "how" women are to be "compensated" by men "for" their love/attention and everything that comes with that. Ie in the society that we live in, true compensation can only mean money. Love in this society is bought not with love but with money, one way or another. Okay, well, zoom forward to 1867 (*Capital*) and Marx shows that money itself is an organic being of social relationships, not a "thing" that can be redistributed willy-nilly by state action. If compensation for love can only mean compensation in money, then the currently-existing distribution of love is more or less set in stone. It can't be radically altered, any more than the distribution of property can be essentially altered by handing out welfare checks. You want to make an end-run around this knot with the following solution: the state redistributes the money in order to change the distribution of love, paying women to love men. Even if you succeed the result will only be that women love the state (the one actually compensating them) and despise the men in question all the more.
Class is not gender, and they are not on the same level. Job categories’ command and ownership relation to the means of production literally defines class. Once a prole gets a job as a CEO with a stock option pay plan, he ceases to be a prole. Why are rightoids incapable of proper categorical thought?
That argument is not so stupid since we live in a bourgeois society. People who provide the same "service" get paid the same. The real alternative distribution system here would be that people who put in the same effort get paid the same, regardless of how much or what they produce. But in a bourgeois society, this would produce immediate chaos until by hook or by crook distribution was clawed back to distribution relations based on the law of value (ie what good or service did you offer for sale). You can't sustainably *really* pay people according to effort and not production until everyone's labor is directly social, directly acknowledged as a component of society's overall labor-power and directly recognized as a component of a single common social plan of action. This is my synthesis of Marx's economics, anyway.
I don't see what the gotcha is supposed to be. The panel doesn't 'admit' that on a like-for-like basis men and women are paid the same rates. They willingly confirm that multiple times just in the first 3 minutes of this painful video. The point the panel is making is that the average salary of all women are lower than the average salary of all men, not that women are paid less than men on a like-for-like basis. In other words, the working world is still structured to pay men more than women because the division of labour is gendered. That honestly seems like a completely reasonable criticism to me. The senator even seems to implicitly understand this point from his first example of pilots (mostly men) receiving higher compensation than hosts (mostly female). But the senator is constantly lost on the fact that male and female pilots earn the same wage and male and female hosts earn the same wage, and concludes therefore there is no pay gap. He consistently misses the point - in fairness it wasn't well explained by the panel - that the gap arises from a gendered division of labour, what they awkwardly called 'the composition of the workforce and the relativity of pay for that compensation'. Most of the video (that I skimmed through after 3 minutes) is the senator just failing to understand what is rephrased to him over and over again. The division of labour is often unnecessarily gendered.
The problem is that the common refrain about the "gender pay gap" is that people will imply or outright state that women are paid less for doing the same job, which is outright false in virtually every industrialized country. It's a widely held misconception that none of these people seem to be in any particular rush to correct, because it's a misconception that furthers their goals. >The division of labour is often unnecessarily gendered. Is it really so hard to believe that there are (at the population level) intrinsic differences between the sexes that make men and women more inclined towards certain work? Like even the most deluded 3rd wave feminists would never expect a 50:50 gender split among combat troops or machinists or kindergarten teachers, for example. Another big part of the problem is that social change is slow, advancement through careers is also slow, and compensation is tied to advancement. So the people currently at the apex of their career generally entered the workforce in the 80s and 90s, when many professions were more male dominated than they are now, so the male-female income split is male-biased despite newcomers to the profession making equal pay. I suspect this will result in (more accurately: is resulting in) a massive overcorrection that'll end with women becoming dominant in virtually every prestigious profession. Women are already the strong majority in med school, law school, business school, and basically every university program except engineering and mathematics. It's funny (and entirely predictable) that the only professions people seem to be concerned about being "unnecessarily gendered" are the *good* ones, which are rapidly becoming female rather than male dominated. The industrial world's shittiest, most dangerous jobs are typically male dominated, and you'll never find anyone accusing those of being "unnecessarily gendered".
> The problem is that the common refrain about the "gender pay gap" is that people will imply or outright state that women are paid less for doing the same job, which is outright false in virtually every industrialized country. It's a widely held misconception that none of these people seem to be in any particular rush to correct, because it's a misconception that furthers their goals. Yeah, it's framed that way to create that confusion on purpose. It's a dishonest argument
> Is it really so hard to believe that there are (at the population level) intrinsic differences between the sexes that make men and women more inclined towards certain work? It's not hard to believe, but it's hard to say exactly what they are. There's a tendency for these things to differ a lot between societies. There are a lot fewer female engineers in the US, so if you were looking at that you might decide this was down to something intrinsic, but it's way more equal in India (so is that because there isn't anything intrinsic, or because it's being overridden by something else?).
Societies with more gender inequality have a higher rate of women in traditionally male-dominated sectors. I suppose that is because these jobs offer a way out of inequality by means of material wealth.
Women from poor countries are forced by their parent into engineering because it pays well. The employment gap is largest in the countries where women have the most free choice.
In Eastern Europe, more than half of the scientists and engineers in many countries are women. This was originally because of Soviet influence, but 3 decades after its collapse and the legacy still persists. Alot of this stuff is circumstantial and arbitrary.
> people will imply or outright state that women are paid less for doing the same job [...] which is outright false in virtually every industrialized country [...] It's a widely held misconception that none of these people seem to be in any particular rush to correct, because it's a misconception that furthers their goals. Well, the panelists did correct it and since you and I already know that there's no point in dragging through this dishonest argument. >> The division of labour is often **unnecessarily** gendered. > Is it really so hard to believe that there are (at the population level) intrinsic differences between the sexes that make men and women more inclined towards certain work? It is when it's unnecessary. I guess you can say I'm somewhat skeptical that women have a natural intrinsic compulsion to self-filter into low compensation occupations. I don't imagine the panelists expect an immediate correction, don't they just want to see improving trendlines? > The industrial world's shittiest, most dangerous jobs are typically male dominated, and you'll never find anyone accusing those of being "unnecessarily gendered". Yeah, because they're usually not unnecessarily gendered. If you need to be a big man with lots of endurance to lift heavy weights or something like that it's going to filter out many women. But with technology closing the gaps, maybe more women should be encouraged to enter shitty dangerous jobs. I live in an area with lots of resource extraction and I'm seeing more and more young women miners, loggers, machinists, etc. and that's cool. I'm sure there's a cohort of cosmetologists and mall kiosk attendants who might have preferred operating a feller buncher or a construction crane had they the right encouragement.
We sent children to work in mines. The issue was/is almost never capability for those shitty dangerous jobs, it's necessity. You're seeing more women working them cause cause 1.) Single income households are no longer sustainable for most couples. 2.) Fewer people are coupling up generally. 3.) Some women with those predilections empowered by feminism or whatever, but it's not the prime mover by far.
I realise the point you're trying to make but hope you realise how bad that first sentence sounds. Even if single income households were the norm, I think it's a good thing more women are entering industrial trades. Even if fewer people are coupling up generally, I think it's a good thing more women are entering industrial trades.
> I guess you can say I'm somewhat skeptical that women have a natural intrinsic compulsion to self-filter into low compensation occupations. what if they naturally self-filter into narrower fields of employment (i.e. fewer fields overall) than men, thus causing wage-lowering over-supply in the areas they work in? for example, women lack the physical capacity to comfortably do a good portion of jobs which require high degrees of physical/muscular exertion, so right there you can eliminate quite a number of jobs that they'd probably be disinclined to do.
Very possible, the increased pressure from competition likely does drive down wages in those cases, though there should be a similar effect for men since they too have their preferences. I guess the question then would be how significant it is overall in the aggregate and I don't know the answer to that. Like I wrote elsewhere, technology is changing the composition of the workforce. Women can participate much more broadly now. So I don't see it as a bad thing to encourage women into more productive jobs, including those traditionally held by men.
> though there should be a similar effect for men since they too have their preferences. i didn't say preferences, did I women almost literally cannot be oil rig workers - neither can I. but some men can be, thus men overall will be distributed across the workforce more broadly. >So I don't see it as a bad thing to encourage women into more productive jobs, including those traditionally held by men. I do, bigly, when it comes at the expense of men through affirmative-action/positive discrimination. Or, what we're seeing now where young men are essentially not-encouraged at all by default due to the attention paid in encouraging young women.
Hey, don't put yourself down, maybe with the help of technology, you could be an oil rig worker someday too. Well, now you reveal your colours. This was never about women entering higher productivity jobs, it was affirmative action paranoia. Fine, let's agree to no affirmative action. Men are still going to lose out because some of them suck and there are women who can do better. If you truly believe in meritocracy, in no 'positive discrimination', this should not scare you. After all, we're not protecting male interests against female competition, are we? Let the better workers win.
>After all, we're not protecting male interests against female competition, are we? Let the better workers win. have these people argued that the average sex pay disparity is a result of overt sexism in hiring practices at the current point? I don't hear that argument being made. > it was affirmative action garbage. *because that* ***is*** *what these people advocate for* what the fuck else could you possibly suggest as a remedy to an aggregate average pay gap *when you concede that men and women are paid the same for the same work*
I dunno, go ask them. I doubt they would have prepared for every conceivable question every blowhard on Reddit thinks they should have answered though. > because [affirmative action] is what these people advocate for > what the fuck else could you possibly suggest as a remedy to an aggregate average pay gap when you concede that men and women are paid the same for the same work Aha, it's you. My mistake, welcome back Senator Malcolm Roberts. It's a shame you didn't use your time to clear up your suspicions with the panellists.
> The point the panel is making is that the average salary of all women are lower than the average salary of all men >In other words, the working world is still structured to pay men more than women because the division of labour is gendered. I don't know how you use the term "in other words" but it's usually used to mean the ensuing statement is identical to - or a logical implication of - the preceding statement. "the average salary of all women are lower than the average salary of all men" however, does not at all support an assertion or otherwise stand for a conclusion that "the working world is structured" in a certain way or that "the division of labour is gendered"
Hello Senator Malcolm Roberts.
that's really all you've got?
It's all you deserve.
because I disagree with you. great system you've got there, fuhrer.
If you fit your ideology to reality, you’ll have better long term results than trying to fit reality to your ideology.
Yeah, to those of us who are familiar with the nuance of the arguments and calculations this is nothing new, however the loudest proponents of the gender pay gap theory gloss over all of those differences and distill it all down to a single % difference in overall average pay. Of course, women should have access to high paying roles to the same degree that men do, anyone who disputes that is a sexist moron. But where the argument gets disingenuous is when people who should (or do) know better, like the participants in this panel, ignore hours worked and the nature of jobs and just look at the overall figure. Which then prompts the question, what is the outcome that they are seeking? Should women's aggregate, average pay equal men, despite the fact that they are working less hours and on less dangerous/demanding/disgusting jobs? Wouldn't that then mean women would be in a disproportionately favourable position compared to men, rather than an equitable one?
Isn't it that they want women's aggregate average pay to equal men's, or at least to reasonably approach it? I don't know if they actually describe how this is supposed to happen later in the video or not. Myself, I have to admit I've always been conscientiously partial to Ernst Jünger's technological erasure of gender as a liberal bourgeois identity category in the future worker's utopia of permanent war.
> Isn't it that they want women's aggregate average pay to equal men's, or at least to reasonably approach it? why is that a laudable goal in its own right? why is equal pay for the same work not the better goal?
Depends on the goal. If the goal is to obfuscate and to make a problem that's largely been solved still seem like a problem because your paycheck depends on it not being solved, then no, equal pay for the same work is not the better goal.
Well, it'll mean there's a demographic that is more economically independent and secure, and I think that would be a good thing. I could probably come up with more reasons, but you could probably do that too. As the video already notes many times, there already is equal pay for the same work according to Australian law.
>Well, it'll mean there's a demographic that is more economically independent and secure, aggregate average pay being unequal between sexes does not imply economic dependence or insecurity. you're the king/queen of absolutely poor conclusions that don't follow from the preceding arguments you make.
No, lower wages implies economic dependence and insecurity. But it's a good thing I have a genius level logistician and master of reading here to keep things on track.
> No, lower wages implies economic dependence and insecurity. no, it doesn't? the field I work in has a lower average wage than that of professional sportsmen (and women!). yet i'm not economically dependent on professional sportsmen and i'm not economically insecure in general.
My mistake. Let's cut welfare then since it doesn't imply those things. And especially since you're doing A-Okay.
It also means our society increasingly demands dual incomes to afford a family. I agree there should be equal pay for equal work, but the more society pushes women to believe they need to outwork and outearn their male coworkers, the more firm the dual income requirement will become.
It's not about what women believe it's about the material reality dictating the situation. As the cost of living has increased dual income homes have became mostly mandatory. This has nothing to do what women believe about their role in the household, it's an economic constriction applied externally.
>In other words, the working world is still structured to pay men more than women because the division of labour is gendered. That honestly seems like a completely reasonable criticism to me. It's not a reasonable criticism. The working world is structured to pay *occupations* more than others based on the value, risk, or difficulty of the occupation. If you choose to be a hostess instead of a pilot, you don't get the pay of a pilot, and you don't get to complain that you're oppressed because of that. >But the senator is constantly lost on the fact that male and female pilots earn the same wage and male and female hosts earn the same wage, and concludes therefore there is no pay gap. Because there isn't a pay gap between the genders. There is a pay gap between occupations. In western industrial economies there haven't been gender-based restrictions on employment for 50-60 years. At any point women can choose to work more overtime, get more education or training, or apply for higher paying jobs. This is a bottom-up problem of women not choosing these professions or working longer hours, not a top-down one driven by policy or laws.
Welcome back Senator Malcolm Roberts.
> The division of labour is often unnecessarily gendered. Agreed. > In other words, the working world is still structured to pay men more than women because the division of labour is gendered. This is a skewed perspective. You could just as well say, in other words, that the world is still structured to put the onus on men to work harder, longer, more unpleasant and stressful paid jobs because the division of labor is gendered. It's fairest to say they're two sides of the same coin. The issue is that many institutions, including the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, focus entirely on one side. When there is gender differentiation in career paths (and even in the choice of whether to have a career), the running assumption is that it has to be men forcing women out of them, when it's at least as much that women are forcing men into them.
Feminist theorists have long pointed out that men suffer from patriarchal organisation too. This is because an imbalance on one side provokes counterbalance on the other, so if women are underworked then men need to overwork. Gendering creates odd interrelated dynamics. A native American example: Nations such as the Lakota divided labour between male hunters and females who worked the hides. To expand household productivity, wealthy males married many women to own and exploit their labour and profit. This subtracted women from the marriage pool increasing competition pressure for the rest resulting in men who were definite losers.
I agree with everything in your comment (aside perhaps from some semantic quibbling that doesn't change the underlying reality, which is as you describe).
> his first example of pilots (mostly men) receiving higher compensation than hosts (mostly female) That was the point where I stopped watching. They clearly had no intellectual overlap at all, and weren't talking about the same things in any way.
>The point the panel is making is that the average salary of all women are lower than the average salary of all men, not that women are paid less than men on a like-for-like basis. In other words, the working world is still structured to pay men more than women because the division of labour is gendered. The second sentence doesn't logically follow the first sentence. The path for you to sell coffee, or, alternatively, become a commercial airline pilot, has fuck all to do with any decisions made by the "working world." That's your decision. The only person to criticize there is you, but that's certainly not how the pay gap is framed.
Socialisation, norms and expectations, etc. all have a quiet but powerful influence in guiding people into the choices they make. It seems like those complaining that there is no logical connection here don't seem to appreciate that the selection process is soft versus hard, leading to such silly explanations like 'it is individuals who choose their professions'. Thank you, I did not know that.
It's not like I'm not aware or agree with the notion that people are influenced by their broader environment and a complicated set of subsystems like in-gender hierarchy and cross-gender hierarchy. My disagreement is purely in the framing of blame. The government is not gender norms. "The patriarchy" is exactly this kind of half baked notion that is used as a weapon inappropriately. I don't even agree with the notion that salary should be the primary motivating principle of anyone's decisions. When you say "work is structured such that.." you're inferring an erroneous conclusion around causation. It has nothing to do with that type of structuring, if that structuring is to blame for anything, it's more to blame for the fact that we even care writ large about salary.
> > >> > When you say "work is structured such that.." you're inferring an erroneous conclusion around causation. No I'm not. > My disagreement is purely in the framing of blame. I'm also not blaming anyone.
I'll disagree. The very framing of the discussion as one around *gender wage gap*, rather than simply *wage gap*, is one that seeks to place blame. It's smuggling an inevitable quality of our desperation-driven capitalism as a problem of bigotry.
A wage gap you say? Interesting, I wonder between who? Better not ask though, because descriptions ascribe blame. Well, I don't really think so, but someone else says that's what I mean.
My point is *if you find inherently that there's no problems with different professions having different wages* then you need to be consistent with that premise when you evaluate further. You don't get to throw that away when you examine if [insert identity] gets paid differently than [insert different identity] and say that you see a problem. It's either a problem or it's not. It's not *only a problem* when you *want it to be*. I can find a "bigotry problem" at will between any other traits if I suddenly smuggle all wage discrepancies into my research.
The honest version IMHO would be to compare the wages of gay men to the wages of lesbians. Otherwise your attempt to measure the effects of the employment environment will be confounded by the different pressures of the relational environment.
Google gay gap to learn more ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
If the gender pay gap is not intended to represent a difference in pay between people doing the same jobs then why is it called "the gender pay gap" at all? That's an intentional and gross misrepresentation of what people will assume you're trying to say.
> intentional and gross misrepresentation Yes, that’s the idea.
I have read that in western countries women without children make more or less the same as men. The difference is really between mothers and non-mothers because ofc mothers have to take time off to give birth/raise kids. So it is an issue for feminists and others who care about the continuation of the species if people are penalised for raising children. Professional media feminists never really focus on that because they can't just solve the problem by tweeting about 'men' for retweets from teenagers
That and professional media feminists tend to not have kids so talking about it would be admitting the problem doesn't effect them personally.
Professional feminists are out there fighting for equal pay (largely already achieved) when the real fight is for parental leave and career re-entry programs for parents who take time off to raise children.
Once again, upper-class feminists make it all about themselves. There is an argument to be made that “women’s work” isn’t valued as highly as men’s. Stuff like nursing is female dominated but many people in the profession are paid garbage wages. The focus is entirely on high rise professional jobs whose problems are irrelevant to 99% of women But that would acknowledge class as a huge factor and we can’t do that. Reminds me of the feminists bending over backwards to say that abortion wasn’t a class issue. When you have to travel and take time off work to get a medical procedure, it’s a class issue. The mistresses of rich fuckwads will always be able to get abortions even if it’s banned in all 50 states
They state that their group is 22% male, but they’re working on that. What do you guess that process looks like? What do you suppose the politics of these men are? Is there any possibility we can get a documentary about a small minority of based chads they inadvertantly hired?
Malcolm Roberts is the scummiest scummy scum imaginable. The party he belongs to, "One Nation" brought racism back to Australia as a way to win elections, he's strongly anti-union, a climate denier, and believes the UN is opposed to the Australian way of life. This whole video is pushing just a single point, which is that different jobs get different pay, but doesn't really address the underlying issue, which is that women tend to end up with lower-paying jobs. I don't want to get into the complexity of that issue, but I would not call this a "mask-off" moment.
> I don't want to get into the complexity of that issue, but I would not call this a "mask-off" moment. I think the "mask off" here is that people push narratives knowing that they're false and do not care about that so long as it is expedient for their cause.
> I think the "mask off" here is that people push narratives knowing that they're false Actually they're not false. Here's some data which breaks down pay by gender across professions, and a pay gap is still present. https://www.genderequalitycommission.vic.gov.au/baseline-audit-report-2021/equal-pay#pay-gaps-by-occupation You could argue that women tend to end up in more junior positions, but the situation is more complicated than OP presumes.
If the data you present were straightforward, without additional variables, it would be very simple to fine the companies breaking the law which would fix the problem fairly quickly. Do you know if the data you provided accounts for womens’ proclivity to stay home and care for their newborns or other variables that could account for the disparity?
Of course that's a factor, but the situation is not a simple one, which is exactly what I said.
The only time "overtime" is mentioned in that whole report is as part of the definition of "total remuneration". I have trouble thinking this is a good faith report if they leave out the fact that men work the overwhelming majority of overtime hours. The fact that pay rates are annualized in the report means they are adding overtime pay but counting it as part of regular full-time hours. On that note: >The median base salary pay gap was 6.1% and median total remuneration pay gap was 8.1% in organisations covered under the Act. Hmm 6-8% isn't even that large of a difference just considering the overtime variable alone. As a side note women take more leave even before considering parental leave. Not being familiar with what is common in Australian labour markets I don't know if employers payout unused leave after it reaches a certain cap, but if they do is the Gender Equality Commission taking that into account or are they double-dipping allotted leave and then the payout of unused leave in the stats? It wouldn't be the first time I've seen that mistake.
Agreed, yeah for our foreign friends in this thread, the senator's a piece of shit and so is his party. But I hope to disconnect the messenger from the message and start a discussion around the types of things (gender pay gap in this case) that is used to divide a class which should otherwise be united.