Good ol' youtube commentors: John: "This is a very complex issue, and here are the complex reasons and why they're complex." Comments: "My super simple cliche of an answer is totally the only reason."
Matthew Black If you look at the top rated comments, you'll find that actually yes, really. The brothers even dismiss facts openly in some of their responses.
And this doesn't even address the most frustrating part of the "explained" pay gap to me: how jobs that women move into lose status and then lose pay. For example, back when school teachers were mostly authoritarian men it was a highly regarded well-paid profession. Then slowly more and more women started to take up this vocation and both the prestige of it and the compensation for it went down dramatically. Collectively, women can't seem to win.
I don't know if that is about the genders involved. Many, many jobs have experienced stagnating wages and a loss of prestige, regardless of the demographic that fills them. It seems like a broader societal issue, imho.
@@hhiippiittyy There has been some serious research done into this effect. Obviously, there are also broader trends and not all stagnating wages are down to this, but it is definitely a thing.
The reason that many jobs have lost prestige and pay is because women got into them before if you wanted to hire a teacher you could only hire from 50% of the population but now you can hire from 100% of population however the demand for a teacher didn't go up as much because each teacher can teach up to 20 or 30 people once you double the supply of labour but the demand kind of stays the same you can expect a loss of value in each unit relative decrease in wages have been happening since women entered the workforce in many professions actually not only teachers (sorry for bad English)
@@mani_saber If this is true then it would make sense. Not anyone's fault individually and women definitely deserve to seek any (legal) profession they want; the diluting of the job market was just inevitable and still supports the commenter's point that women just couldn't/can't win. I mean, it was a net gain since at least they can do the job they want to do, but being paid less than people before you definitely hurts.
There's also such a thing as supply and demand. IF both men and women can work a job, then the pay can go down cause there's just more people to do it. If I was the only school in a 20 mile radius and my application pool doubled due to both sexes now applying for the few jobs I'd previously had, I'd just cut wages and hire more people, which could in turn get me more money from the government because we can get more kids or increase the actual value of the education provided since people can focus solely on specific topics, thus turning it into a private school (at least back in the day) to rake in money as well. There's no reason for me to pay a premium to attract people to apply to what maybe wasn't the "cool job" that most kids turned adults didn't want to focus on or go into in the first place when I don't need to anymore. The illusion that you "Can always be replaced" is kind of what stagnates jobs in this day and age. If your boss threatens that they could have someone in here tomorrow, what's the point of ever raising your wage? Someone would be fine having what you have now. If the pool of applicants suddenly decreased by a bit more than 50% (Because there are more women than men) they'd be way more keen to keep you and thus give you a raise as your talent is actually more valuable now. Same with hiring in general. All this on top of everything he said like paid hours, education, skill, time off, choice of profession, etc. I work in IT and I obviously make more than a liberal arts major which more women would choose to go into in college. Remember, it's literally illegal to actually pay a women less for the same job, so if you do find a job where you're not actually getting paid the same amount of money per hour (Not accounting for raises and the like) you should be able to "Easily" sue and win since all you'd really need to start a case is a male colleague's pay stub vs your own for the exact same hours worked in the exact same position. Actually fight for your supposed income too, don't let people low ball your starting pay, yada yada yada.
+w3irdo13 That's the point. No evidence means it's probably not happening. If I told you I flew down to pick up groceries every couple days and couldn't provide you with any evidence of it (no proof of ownership of a helicopter or genetics proving I'm a human bird hybrid...), you could only conclude it's probably not happening. And even if it is, you can't make something more illegal than illegal. If you do not tell the cops that someone stole your car, it's not discrimination when they fail to get it back for you. And don't even start with the "but they need their jobs and can't risk it" argument. Even if you don't tell the cops about your stolen car because you know for a fact that the person will kill you - as they even full on told you they would - if you say anything about your car, you are not being discriminated against. Fear of repercussions from the perpetrater that keeps the victim silent doesn't mean there is "systematic discrimination" against that victim. And this is even worse, because it's being branched out to a group that victim happens to be in. Using me in that example of a stolen car it's the equivalent of saying people who play games in the Final Fantasy series are discriminated against because I'm afraid to tell the cops that a law has been broken. I mean, I've played Final Fantasy games, so clearly this group I'm ostensibly a part of is oh so harassed. I'm sure I could even find some studies to support such a claim (gamers were once much more looked down upon, after all, and even now hardcore ones like myself still are to some extent), but of course it would be fucking nonsense to even imply such a thing.
John Greene is proof positive that good, old fashioned logic with compassion (but not compromised by compassion) can still be found on the Internet. No ranting or railing or making fun, or picking the rhetoric of a single side. Just a well-reasoned explanation of the facts, and a plausible interpretation of them. It's a dying breed, but it still exists. Very refreshing.
+NoogahOogah It would be nice if I could just trust a "Here's a source, it must be factual", but enough 'feminist' studies have been published and spun that I'm kind of jaded. While he's putting a logical argument together, I can't trust the sources without researching them. Unfortunately, I'm either running into "can't connect to server" problems in source links or finding statistics that are based on a median or average, which still does not accurately portray the 1 man v 1 woman in the same job doing the same work.
Nick Stice I for one share your doubts. Statistics are the easiest kind of data to manipulate, and in the case of sex discrimination, it happens all the time. Even Greene admits that any discrimination would be 4% at most, and I'm quite sure there are factors besides primeval discrimination at play even in that small margin of difference. But Greene is definitely approaching the issue with much more fairness and nuance than most people, and I can tolerate even an extremely far out view when it is articulated with such thoughtfulness.
+NoogahOogah If you think you can go to 1 place to get all your info on any topic and trust it 100% and that place is giving you what you want to hear, you my friend are susceptible to bias.
The women CHOOSE to do the unpaid work. Men living alone don't clean their homes. When they get married, they do MORE housework (because if they don't, their wives get annoyed?). Women value the life-work balance differently, and they take out time from careers to have children.
+Stephanie Lang Well try to conjure the stereotypical image of the room of a man living alone... and then of a woman living alone.. Yes... generally men don't clean that often. (which is quiet sad to be honest)
The only thing I have an issue with is your claiming that the unexplained paygap = discrimination. It is a likely assumption. But that's what it is: a somewhat good guess of how to explain the "unexplained wagegap"; but you made it sound like it were a fact which I disagree with. Other than that, it was an excellent video. Thank you for making it.
Just to make sure: I still believe a big portion of the unexplained wagegap is due to discrimination, just not 100% of it. And I totally agree that 4-8% is a lot and definitely too much.
But if it is'nt discrimination what is it? Becuase in these studies and statistics they have counted away everything that makes sense to change the wage. And the only noticable diffrent that is left are the gender of the person. So right now with ta data we have I think It's pretty safe to say that it is discrimination. But really what else do you think could explain it? Becuase I can't think of something wich is why I think this way.
+Iller Well it can't account for how men and women negotiate for their raises for example, can it? What if women are just more lenient and accept lower raises than men? I assume that's another reason why the pay gap grows with increasing age since this effect multiplies over time. I mean I'm not sure and it's just a hypothesis, but here you go :).
+What's Their Name Again? - "Other than that, it was an excellent video. " HAHA what? How can it be an excellent video if it just assumes as true the very thing it's trying to prove? That is a logical fallacy known as "begging the question."
+BF2Cavs If they pay women less, it's because they think women are incompetent and they would like to discourage women from working with them. So they'd keep hiring men because men are seen as more capable and having more potential for leadership roles than women. Male employees would also be promoted into senior positions and managerial positions at a faster rate than women.
+BF2Cavs You need to acknowledge the reasons why women are paid less. When I was 13 my teacher told all the girls in the class its totally okay for people to refuse to employ us because 'we will just end up having babies anyway' and needing maternity leave or they would 'waste'; their time training us if we left to have kids. At 13 i had enough common sense to see this happen and know it is wrong. What if im single, i pay just as much rent as a man. If i'm a single mum i rely on that income. If my partner cannot work for whatever reason. If i cant even have kids or don't want them. If you partner is a say at home dad. What if im gay, what then? It's because on the whole it's so ingrained that women are no more then walking wombs and as a society we struggle to shake of traditional roles and expectations. And yes, im planning on being a stay at home mum but until then I still need a job just as much as my male counter part.
+BF2Cavs hahah I know right? woman are more capable than men smarter even! but we pay them less for for better work!!! and not one evil capatolist businessman is exploiting this clear advantage over the competition with 100% female work force? ow sorry strip clubs do usually, lol. , lol hahahahah jesus...lol
+BF2Cavs Yes, if business could really just pay women $0.77 for every $1.00 that men make, for the exact same work, then it would make sense to just hire women in order to cut on payroll costs.
Interestingly, it has been found that the gender pay gap closes between childless women and childless men around age 45. So this definitely seems to be due to the real and perceived handicaps suffered by working mothers and the tendency to pay men better once they become fathers.
On paper the men make more when they become fathers but the wife still lives the lifestyle without raking in the $$. I would be happier taking care of the kids instead of being at work. But that is seen as a burden and being att work as a privilege.
@@JustAboutToEat that's what I see too. The relationships I have been in indicate an expectation that they will be able to stay home with the kids more than me. After all her dad worked while here mother stayed home, her brothers work while their wives stay home, her sisters stay home while their husbands work. I feel like I'm the one being put in a box yet no one gives a damn.
@@JustAboutToEat you do know how hard taking care of kids is right? It's not all sunshine and rainbows Taking care of kids is difficult and stressful and saying women should be happy to stay at home as their husbands provide for the family is stupid some women want a carer not just taking care of kid their whole lives woman shouldn't automatically be forced to take care of kids and stay at home and be happy with it
@@kayleechristley8861 "I would be happier taking care of the kids instead of being at work." that was what that person you replied to said. Instead you played the victim game and twisted their word and responded "....*saying women* should be happy to stay at home as their husbands provide for the family is stupid....". Cheap debate tactic. If a 21st century woman, from let say the U.S., wants a career instead of taking care of the kids, then she should be discussing that with her male partner before procreate. Maybe some kind of arrangement (childcare) can be agreed upon. If there's no agreement, then find another mate or don't have kid at all. No one can legally force women to have kids in the first place. Social construct dictates that mother should take care of kids yes, but social construct is not a law. If you let society pressures you into be a stay-at-home mom, it's on you, maybe it's on your parents for not teaching you to break social construct, or maybe it's on your partner, or your friends, and so on. But most importantly, it's on you!
+JamesBacha True, and he also didn't mention that men share their salaries more often, which in turn leads to more effective negotiations. That said, I'm still impressed by the ammount of data and perspective he managed to jam into a 6 minutes video. Way to go John
+Nemo Tu Novi Abstract: "One explanation advanced for the persistent gender pay differences in labor markets is that women avoid salary negotiations. By using a natural field experiment that randomizes nearly 2,500 job-seekers into jobs that vary important details of the labor contract, we are able to observe both the nature of sorting and the extent of salary negotiations. We observe interesting data patterns. For example, we find that when there is no explicit statement that wages are negotiable, men are more likely to negotiate than women. However, when we explicitly mention the possibility that wages are negotiable, this difference disappears, and even tends to reverse. In terms of sorting, we find that men in contrast to women prefer job environments where the ‘rules of wage determination’ are ambiguous. This leads to the gender gap being much more pronounced in jobs that leave negotiation of wage ambiguous." Sorry I didn't post this with the original link. You know how youtube can be. It's a 2012 study and I'm not sure if any other studies have come to the same results, but I still think it's something to chew on when discussing the 'unexplainable' part of the wage gap.
Couple quickie points: 1) Sexual discrimination is illegal in all portions of employment, including wages. If you have a wage problem, take it to court, not to Tumbler. 2) Women spend far more money than men in the market. Why? Because men turn it over to them. So while the point about women doing more unpaid labor is true on record, it is so very untrue in reality. Men give their wives so much money that it can easily be said that women make MORE money than men since they get to SPEND more money than men. It really doesn't matter whose check has the higher number when men are getting to use less of it at the store.
Alexis Burns Seriously? And who makes these women feel they need all this shit? Men will take anything with a vagina. It's women that pressure themselves to be attractive. As for gendered pricing, that is another one of the feminist myths that exist out there. TL;DR did a nice little expose on this where he showed the comparative ingredient differences and pointed out how the products are NOT the same even tho they appear to be the same. And often this is because of the physical differences between men and women but also because men often want things simple and don't desire the extra "3 in 1" and other nonsense. But all that is irrelevant as there is no one stopping women from buying male products and using those instead. But let's suppose that gendered prices are alive and well and let's take the pay gap seriously as well. www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35486308 This says that price gap is 7% and I've heard that the wage gap is 23%. So what about the consumer spending gap? Oddly there is no data for this after 20 minutes of research. Almost like no one cares. But let's do some math to figure out what that number would have to be to balance things. If women make 23% less and pay 7% more then female spending SHOULD appear to be about 81-82% of men in total cost. So the market share should be split roughly 4:5 which means that 44.4% of spending should be done by women with 55.5% done by men. But women spend more money than men do in the market. Who knows how much because no one has a web page source. But the fact that women are spending more money than men shows that they are getting money from somewhere other than employment to do it. If they only spent what they earned then women would not be ABLE to spend as much as men. And where are women getting that money? Oh yeah, that's right, men. Usually through joint bank accounts within marriage. Man works, woman spends. So like I said, women ARE making more money than men, and quite a bit more than 7%. But not all of it comes via a taxable paycheck through employment. Some of it comes through being married and sucking out sections of a man's paycheck.
Ben Garrison A terrible sexist system created by women. It ain't men demanding women wear makeup or specific clothes. It's women competing with each other for men's attention which they are NOT required to do.
+Curtis Smale Hmmm. But if you're talking about man and wife, that's shared household income isn't it? If we're talking about meritocratic type wage earning, even if a wife were to get a lot of her husband's earnings, that would not be constituted within a pay gap and doesn't necessarily have any bearing on the issue of women having unpaid labor since she does not have any rights to his money legally. Same if the roles were switched. Because having that type of joint income (unless you have kids) is definitely 100% personal choice [except in extreme spousal support cases but I think we all know spousal support is bullshit and doesn't need to exist anyway so...]
Thank you for creating a nuanced, well researched video on this topic. I'm finding more and more lately gender issues are dealt with in polarized absolutes, neither of which stand up to criticism. In a sea of exaggerations both ways, you've managed to stick to facts and create an honest summation of the status quo, so thank you for providing information sans agenda!
Never discussed or researched anywhere: how often a husband finds new job, the couple moves for that job, and the wife takes the first available job without negotiating. That has to be some of that last 4-8%
Yes. That probably is part of that 4-8%. I can't tell if you are arguing against the existence of the pay gap or not but the fact that this is a common thing to happen that the male gets the important job and the female gets whatever is available is something that would be interesting to look into
Kind of. It’s also average age. On average whites are much older than other racial groups. The average ages are as followed(rounded): Latinos:28, African Americans: 33, Native Americans: 34, Asians: 36, whites: 43. As someone ages they tend to make more money
@@ericmans215 And? Homie, I was 100% down with being with my exes who had potential 6 figure salaries, why is it a bad thing that the girls want to take it easy? Sounds like a positive.
@@IskandarTheWack I don't think it is nessasarily a negative. I think it just might contribute to the gap. It would be interesting to look into more deeply
When we control for work experience and education, the gap is only about 5 percent. And when we account for the fact that men are more likely to be injured or suffer an accident on the job, and do riskier work and often more unpleasant jobs than women, the gap virtually disappears. Furthermore, the latest surveys of college graduates find virtually no pay discrepancy between men and women, so for this generation the 77-cents mantra is outdated.
+AgentOracle disagreeing with your assumptions != a flame war. If you can't deal with people freely expressing opinions that might run counter to yours, the internet may not be the best place for you.
+mwells219 I have two critiques of this. One. Assumptions. The opinions expressed in this video are based in statistical fact. They are not simply blind assumptions. Secondly, AgentOracle was not saying that people could not express their opinions. They were simply saying that the rage and sorrow expressed in RUclips comments are a great way to roast marshmallows. Which I happen to agree with.
Except that the only emprical data that he used in his argument is that the "pay gap" is actually not as large as any feminist claims it is and then just said that the remaining small gap exists because of sexism without providing any proof to support this argument.
+mwells219 +mwells219 I'm not sure if you watched the video or not. He clearly uses graphs multiple times and quotes statistics to back up and explain those graphs. As for the 4-8% pay gap he clearly says "most nonpartisan analyses agree that it is due to discrimination." John does back up his claims, even if he doesn't show us ever article that he has read.
Here in South Africa, men (grandpas) start getting pension at 65, and women at 60. The argument is that men are still strong at that age and could continue working. Lol
+giga1452 It would be nice if women "being more assertive" would automatically give them equal ability to achieve higher positions in the work force. But the truth is that our society does have preconceived gender roles. That means that women are expected to act and behave a certain way, just as men are. Unfortunately, women who try to break these barriers ARE often seen as bitchy or ruthless or coldhearted, the opposite of what women are expected to be. This isn't always the case, of course, but the expectation of women to be more submissive is what makes it difficult for them to reasonably fight for higher positions. To write off such stereotypes as a myth is to disregard a major social factor in an incredibly complicated issue.
+giga1452 There definitely are biological factors, but if we as a society can recognize that, we can work to surpass those factors. I mean, there are a pleanty of biological and instinctual behaviours that people don't act on because it's wrong to do in our society. Also some perceptions/behaviours are shaped by the culture we live in. Men are more assertive in part because that is the cultural expectation. If we can change our expectations, then we can begin to encourage both men and women to assert themselves.
+JJ Yu Please... Here where women can divorce, take the kids, take the house, and rob far more than their fair share from men? Sorry that men also happen to be much more likely to DIE on the job, (as they generally work much more dangerous jobs,) and are more likely to pursue high paying careers. If it was true that an employer could pay minorities and women less than men, then why would he not only hire them?! These things are complicated and there are many MANY factors in play... I know that his message is going to be appealing to the majority of his demographic audience, but it is not based in reality and panders to things that are beyond our justly coming to a definite conclusion of. i2.wp.com/www.avoiceformen.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/09/infographic-.wagegap.png?resize=816%2C1056
+giga1452 how can you not see the connection between assertiveness, perceived strength and patriarchy? your points could make great arguments in the opposite direction.
cause if I had the same job as u then yes but if you were know as junior or assistance (blank) then it's not even discriminating xD also if you listen he explained why because girls with kids takes more days off / or work for no money
some one NAME VALENCIA I know full well. I said nothing that even slightly conflicts with that. That's why it's better called the "earnings gap". I was only saying that if for some reason your boss was paying you less for the same amount of work, that's illegal.
Everyone in the comments seem like they are misunderstanding the whole paid gap. Of course if men work more hours than women they'll get paid more. This is about if they work the same hours in the same job women still get paid less. That's the problem.
I would recommend looking into Sir Sic’s commentary on this. He does very well at discrediting his claim. Boiling down to choice, women having babies, and natural programming. Such as maternal instincts and how those pertain to their choices, and how males tend to do the more unfavorable jobs such as plumbing, going into waste pits, working for moving companies (lifting heavy furniture), or among others who now have a responsibility to provide for their families.
@@miad6160: You could turn to a orphanage, and I do agree many don’t plan to have children. Many being young careless women who seek thrills or experiences adults have. As cruel as it may sound, that was their decision to make, that is their consequence. A friend of mine was placed with a similar dilemma. A ex wishing to return to him after getting herself pregnant by another man. The man left her, which I had my own vices about. However, she then decided to try to get back with the man she left (my friend), hoping to share the trouble with raising a child with him. My friend said no, that he spent a year trying to get over her and now she comes pregnant from another man, hoping to return to how it was after little to no communication? It is sad, but it was a choice she made, and she placed her faith in the wrong person. Both of them are nineteen mind you. I have even been to middle schools where it was common to see a used condom in a water fountain. Or where students participate in sexual acts in the cafeteria, or in hidden places around the school. Again, that is the fault of them making those choices. Many have ruined their lives only because they put their hopes in the wrong person, through no fault of the child growing within them. Unfortunately the sex culture won’t be going away anytime soon, until we are able to change our mindset, we can only inform people of the consequences for the actions they take. I also have come to know several who regret making the decision to have the abortion, depending on the stage their pregnancy is in. Personally I don’t wish to see it again. Edit: But to say MOST pregnancies are not planned, is a bit exaggerated. Many know the chances and how to prevent it, and think “oh it won’t happen to me” or “It is a safe day”. People tend to gamble with odds saying “It is mostly in my favor”. Sure they may not be planned but it is far from unexpected given prior warning from peers, friends, and family alike. At least from my point of view and experience. Being “You refuse to listen until it is too late or ends up being you in that chance happening to you”.
SJkid39 Why is it the pay gap side has studies and all the other side thinks they have to do is debunk those studies. That's not how logic works. No that's not what they are doing either.
I would point you to The Factual Feminist (Christina Hoff Summers) who's life's work has been in this field, you will find that she explains exactly why there is an *EARNING* (not wage) disparity, and it isn't discrimination.
She considers herself a Feminist and unless there's a leadership structure all of a sudden then she's a Feminist. Please define what a Feminist is, and what she does that disqualifies her for the title.
+BeFaLcon 94 bias has nothing to do with intelligence. it has to do with the fact that anyone can be mistaken. einstein refused to believe quantum mechanics existed and is often quote-mined as having said "god does not play dice with the universe" as part of his dismissal of quantum. quantum mechanics are regularly used in labs everywhere on earth today. was einstein dumb? no, he just had blind spots, like everyone else.
Its just so great to see that some people actually are willing to talk the tough talks even when they don't have to. Thanks @vlogbrothers for that and thanks nerdfighteria for being just open to change and being awesome
+Ellenore Holbrook Thank you for giving me the encouragement and reminder I needed. I'm logging off comments now to do take care of the kids. Thanks for watching the video! -John
+vlogbrothers I dont want to sound like an ass but can it be said that men are far more likely to be promoted to higher positions of work because they generally exude better leadership skills.
+Ineta Life Well this is a rigged question. Few people get paid via a per product method (At least if your not self employed), however, yes the worker who provided the fewest numbers in terms of products would receive the lowest pay.More or less what your doing is constructing a scenario to use as a example in which the only logical step is to admit that Bob should make more then Sally. Therefore everybody else's opinion on the subject is automatically wrong.This is real life however where things aren't perfect. Worker skill, career goals, ability to work overtime, etc... all work into how much somebody is willing to work and their efficiency at getting said work done. You example uses a example of physical work, which I will admit on the average most women cannot lift as much as men. If we look at most jobs these days however they are not very dependent on physical strength. A worker of either gender can work harder than the rest at McDonalds, Walmart, in accounting, customer service, running a business, etc.Basically what I'm trying to say is that your example is worthless for actually talking about wage discrimination. It's more of a tool for making yourself feel good.
I am confused as to how someone can see a video like that and respond in such a way as you just did. I would like to know why you think the gender pay gap is propaganda, and who is propagating it and to what end?
Usually people conclude there is a gender pay gap, but the reason for that gap is always sexism, they never look at the different working habits of men v. women, i.e. how much time they take off work, do they volunteer to work overtime/weekends, DO THEY GIVE BIRTH TO CHILDREN? The average dad will take off much less time from work than a mother would, that alone can affect your career.
Women are different than men! That isn't debatable! They have an entirely different damn chromosome! They have different levels of hormones and brain development!
Evil Duck Sure they’re different. But I’ll ask, completely rhetorically (meaning I don’t really care), does that mean to you that they are less deserving of equal pay or the same rights you have? Not trying to take a side, just raising a question
So you know the whole "God in the gaps" phenomenon? People used to think the gods lived on the top of mountains, like Mt. Olympus, until people climbed those mountains and didn't find Zeus. OK then maybe God lives in the clouds, until we figured out how clouds actually worked. Well then maybe God is in the stars? Then we found out what space is like and now God has to live somewhere else. So now in 2016 we aren't sure what happened before the big bang and we haven't gotten a good grasp of quantum mechanics yet, so maybe that's where God lives. This entire video was basically "Sexism in the gaps". We start out with the whole 77 cents on the dollar and everyone shouting about how that $0.23 is all sexism. And then we correct for hours worked and the pay gap shrinks to 16 cents, which are now by the way totally sexism you guys... this time for real seriously, patriarchy! And then we correct for education, job experience, and career choice then the pay gap shrinks to 4 cents. And then NOW you guys ... this time, it's sexism OK. could it not be possible (and very probable based on the way this argument has been going for decades) that if we were to take a closer look at that 4% we'd find more totally not sexist reasons that men and women are paid differently. Maybe men and women negotiate for raises in different ways, maybe men and women enjoy different types of jobs. Or maybe it's disingenuous to claim that any wage gap that cannot be explained must therefore be explained as sexism.
I suggest you read some of the arguments in other threads under this video. There are so many reasons why your statement is almost certainly false, which I'd love to get into if I didn't have to leave in a minute (hence why I'm telling you to thoroughly search through these threads and hopefully you'll find the explanations that I'm referring to.)
you could check the dooblidoo and see all the sources for yourself. then at least you would know why John said what he said. maybe somewhere in the sources the factors you mentioned are already mentioned and that 4% is still left! who knows man?
The 4-8% is not "unexplained" its just that its impossible to objectively value work and its an employers job to keep wages low. If men ask for pay raises more than women then that will effect the statistics but it is not discrimination. Personally I suggest that wages are transparent so that everyone can know what their immediate colleague is earning so they can have the justification for asking for a raise. Another thing to consider is that corporations and businesses have employee perks which may be more favourable to female employees such as childcare vouchers.
+RFE Interesting points. However your last one does bother me slightly. Childcare vouchers aren't more favourable to women because both men and women should be taking care of children and not just exclusively women. So both benefit from them
Maternity leave is a complete waste of company money, especially if it is a white collared job. I say this as a female who, personally, would love maternity leave. But rationally as a human, I think that it's a waste and shouldn't be mandatory.
BlancheNeigefan this fantasy, that you can just take a country like Norway and over lay their policies onto the US is amazing. The US is wholly unlike Western Europe. you want to see a more accurate reflection of why that doesn't work? wait 30 years and continue the massive flood of unchecked immigration with families that will take generations to assimilate and integrate. Germany, the UK, sweeden, they can all afford these generous programs because they have a more wealthy and better educated populace to tax.
Yeah but there is also the cost of training for an organization as well as the cost of a job becoming unfilled and the lost productivity from it as well as the cost of the new replacement not being at peak efficiency yet due to being new to the game.
Wow, I never seen someone one work so hard to fake being unbiased. Your language did not start out neutral and build to a conclusion. It was accusatory through out. The kicker for me is when you say "most of the gap is explained by discrimination", but by your own admission the gap shrinks from 21% to 8% due to differences in experience, education, and career choice.
+bullpcp Just to be clear, I would not be super shocked if the last 4 to 8% had some discrimination in it. But they make no suggestion as to how to ferret it out. Like suppose a man demands a raise after good project, but his female employee is too nice or timid to demand it. Is that discrimination? Or suppose a man is more willing to travel or work at field office away from his family, but the woman does not want to leave town. As such the man has more opportunities to impress more people. Is that discrimination? Or suppose that a sexist boss slips in a $1 raise to a male employee. How are you going to identify this sexist boss from a boss of female employee who overestimates her value? All the signals of quality will be the same for an outside job. To me, this gender wage gap feels like whining. No one except radical feminists are offering solutions, and usually these take the form of gender based taxes, subsidies, and hiring quotas. I don't want a tax on me just because I have a dick.
+TC Coltharp I think women being too timid to ask for raises might be a product of societally enforced gender roles. So while it may not be directly due to gender discrimination by the employer ("I'll pay a woman less"), that still makes the gap a product of discrimination. Just a more subtle form of it.
TC Coltharp Well being aware of these societally enforced roles goes a long way in changing my personal behavior so that I'm not part of the problem. In the same way, if awareness of the issue continues to spread, most people will also change to a more progressive behavior, and slowly but surely, these roles will become a thing of the past, and the wage gap could close as a consequence. In other words, change is about our attitude and the language we use. And in this case, I think a situation where the majority begins to encourage career competitiveness and assertive traits that lead to better wages (in women as well as men), is perfectly plausible
Thank you for actually addressing everything that is standardly discussed as complaints during the discussion of the wage gap. The people who ignore the complexity make solving the gender wage gap more difficult because it invites backlash. John, you always help make us smarter and hopefully we are able to use this information to truly transform the world into a more fair place.
+vlogbrothers John you are reading the comments, i would suggest you skip them for this video otherwise you'll go crazy. Go have a Dr. Pepper or something... DFTBA
Hell yeah! Women power! :) I am a female engineer. Am the only female in my team and in every previous company men were majority in this field. I will no longer accept a salary below those of my male colleagues.
I work as an Engineer with long experience, and although I train all my male colleagues when they first start, I know for a fact that they make either equal or more than I do. I thought about this a lot and why it's happening and I figured the fact that my need to be with my children scares me from fighting for more money thinking that it may be associated with more work and commitment than I already put in. In addition, Engineering is a profession that requires continuous testing in order to be licensed, unfortunately I am unable to dedicate more time to anything but my kids, that's the inner guilt that stops me from wasting any more time on anything but them since I'm already spending almost 60%of my day in engineering!. So basically, I think based on my experience, I'm accepting that I'm being underpaid because I know that my choice will always be being the best mom vs being the best worker. The fact that I put the majority of my effort in my home and kids leads me to think I may not deserve to be paid the same amount to what a person who's 100% dedicated to work. I don't know if this makes sense to anyone but I feel like all the above makes me grateful for anything and that is not a bad thing, it's really a choice. That's how I think as a woman, now in order for this whole thing to be fair, I think another more careful scale should be created to test and set the wages based on knowledge and impact and should be developed as an individual progress in a position.
Your comment should get an award of its own.... I am changing careers for a lower starting salary because my previous career wont let me and my wife work in the same location if we each focus on our career. So i take a pay cut and start again. Its a multi dimensional issue. Also women are necessary for some part of child care that is irreplaceable. And in a competitive field like engineering you cant push the same hour continous with other priorities. I am doing my masters in another field and sometime i get to here stuff like"At now your are back, I have done it for these many months now you handle the kid". Its not like i dont want to, i am studying after 13 years of working with students 10 years younger while thinking about them. All that effort is overlooked, because men are supposed to be less caring and emotion less. Since we cant get credit we do what we are expected to do, show care by earning more more money at expense of spending time with family, inch for higher raises. Tell me if this is the case why shouldnt there be a pay gap? I expect it to be even higher. PS:- All countries have a gender descrimination law in constitution. If it could be verified its discriminatory it would be sued. Like in my country for govt job the salary is fixed and like inscribed on a stone fixed for everyone to see... most regulated places have that....
@@allbirdsarecatsThe problem is women are not working equal amount of hours, nor are they as reliable when it comes to working unscheduled shifts or overtime nor are they as willing to move. They call off more and take more vacation time. They are far more likely to take leave during pregnancy and paternal leave after delivering the baby, to care for the baby at home for a few weeks or months. They are not as likely to remain with the company. They are less likely ask for a raise. Please explain to me how you could fill these gaps AND pay the women equally, even pay for all the extra time off!
You've really nailed it on the head here. On the flipside, a lot of young fathers face the pressure to be better providers and will instead work MORE hours in the office or on the job, so that they can provide better for their wives and children. So both men and women face different pressures that lead to men taking on more paid work and women taking on less paid work. I do think women have more freedom in this though. Yes there's pressure to be a supermom, but ultimately you can make the choice to work more hours at work and spend less time with your kids. You do have that choice and it's unlikely to affect your romantic relationships and anybody who criticizes you for not being "supermom" is rightly criticized for being a misogynist. So you have a real choice in front of you. Most men do not have this choice. Not legitimately anyway. They can either be a provider or a provider. Men who sacrifice money and time at work are viewed as less ambitious and are thus less desirable to women. And this is reinforced even by feminist women who still put a lot of emphasis on a man's financial status when choosing a guy. A lot of women seem to think a man should make as much as them or more. Which is weird, because entering the workforce should have freed up women to focus on other traits when choosing a mate, but instead it seems to have made women even more selective, viewing with less financial status than them as "below them", and not worth considering as a future mate.
Women get paid less because they do housework? I used to think you were smart... Its a choice women make, believe it or not, to spend more time at home then at work fully knowing that they won't get paid for it. Women choose to stay home with their kids because they want to and understand it'll be more beneficial to both her and her child that she takes care of them instead of putting them in daycare. There is a gender earnings gap, yes, but the wage gap is a complete myth and if there was, why would any smart business man ever hire a man again? They would save a lot of money by simply hiring women...
The way he is putting it makes it look like they should get paid more simply for going home early to do housework instead of staying at work. There is no wage gap, an earnings gap, yes but no wage gap.
Jesus Christ Where is the evidence of this? Claiming it doesn't make it so. If women get paid less because the CHOOSE to leave work earlier than men, then that's their own fault. Tell them to start crying after they make up around 90% of work related deaths.
Interesting no mention that men also get injured on the job more, laid off more, and have been over taken by women in enrollment and graduation from colleges. Also, the salary negotiation issue isn't mentioned either.
+DownloadDeX Listen, this guy makes most of his living off the internet. The Twitter-twats could ruin this guy completely. Hes got kids to feed. Don't expect him to rock the boat. It's not fair to him.
FortuitusVideo I am perfectly willing to discuss this with people. I personally do believe there is gender discrimination in the workplace. But I also believe we need to adequately identify the real issues from the imaginary ones.
My ex convinced me it was a lie by saying women don't want to do some of the skilled and dangerous jobs. Especially ones which are both. But he didn't mention that women are excluded from those workforces by sexism inherent in those professions. Ageism also deserves a dishonorable mention.
I know right? People in their 50s are more likely to stay until they retire, more likely to have more experience, less likely to go on maternity/paternity leave... why don't people want to employ them?
@@IgnoreMeImWrong Hi Jenna. You recently pissed me off on one of my comments. While replying I realized that my original comment was mistakenly posted on John Green's video and not on the RUclips Short it was meant to go on (I had two windows open). This youtube short was a guy asking a girl what the gender pay gap was and she fumbled her way through a bad explanation. I hated the video because it painted this girl in a bad light and implied the gender pay gap wasnt real without giving any sort of fact whether it was or not. I came to John's video because ive watched it before and knew it was informative and I wanted a reminder. I deleted my comment as it literally made NO SENSE as a comment to John's video. I blew up at your comment thinking it was a poking of fun at my critique of a mysogynitic and misleading YT short. I now see that is not the case and that you did not deserve the replies that followed. So I apologize. I still dont like you though. Correcting you're/your on the internet is cringe and has been since Myspace.
@@BluesJayPrince I didn't correct it, you did. I merely pointed out the amusing irony of it. Though, I'm so glad that someone who knows nothing about me finds me on another video just to tell me they don't like me. 💋
George12String If this conversation was limited to professional economists, then there would be no conversation at all. You could always just... you know... actually address these "experts"' arguments rather than condescendingly dismissing them.
Im a hugh mungus expert and i pay womenz less cos they smell. By no means is vlog brothers an expert on this issue so you get the audience you deserve. and yeah actually address the arguments rather than dismissing them in a condescending comment.
The problem is the question is fundamentally an economic question that SHOULD be generally limited to experts. The problem is this issue is politicized when its really a quantitative question with a yes/no answer --- but most people (left and right alike) seem to think there is much more to it than that. I don't have the answers, but my point is many people seem to think they do.
It is politicized I agree but I disagree that it should be left to 'experts'. An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.
Well, that's the old joke and there is an element of truth to it. However, keep in mind that by stating experts, I really mean people who have analyzed data explicitly relevant to discussing the age gap. I think the problem is that this is a question that can be answered purely with facts, but (like in all too many instances) people simply substitute their world view (on both sides). Anyone can, of course, have an opinion. But it should be grounded in reality --- but that is not what I see here in the comments section.
Paul, there are tons of canadians who ridicule the US. At least that's the impression I get from the canadians I've met and get exposed to online lol. But honestly I think they're the same as everyone else and the "nice canadian" thing is just a vastly exaggerated stereotype.
Standard of living in higher for the average Canadian though. You pay more taxes but you don't pay for private insurance. I've lived in both countries and I have a little more disposable income at the end of the day in Canada. The only advantage that the US has is travel is much cheaper - airport fees and charges in Canada are terrible. Often drive across the boarder if I want to travel. Both are good places to live, for me Canada has been a bit better.
Interestingly I am right wing in Canada, but left wing in the US. Go figure. I live in the Prairies of Canada, Central SK. The average salary here is $70 k and I find at the end of the day I have more money to spend on extras than in the US if I buy health insurance.
You can't commit a basic logic fallacy, mislead your viewers, and expect not to receive criticism. John commits the argument from ignorance when he states the unexplained gap is sexism.
@@CoryMck He literally states that we cannot explain this 4% gap, therefore its sexism. That is in a literal sense an argument from ignorance. He provides nothing to support that statement. I could easily postulate that that gap is explained by previous work experience. Secondly, that statement is not even true. When you control for agreeableness you find that the gap diminishes to zero. The issue here is John controlled for 5 factors and assumed it was enough when there are way more factors that could influence income Generally, you can never conclude anything from ignorance. If something is unexplained, by definition you cannot explain it. He states the gap is unexplained, yet goes on to explain it which is a textbook argument from ignorance fallacy. Its like stating, we don't know what caused this house to be destroyed therefore it must be a tornado. Logically, if you don't know something you must stop there, you cannot conclude anything from ignorance.
@@jhonklan3794 Did you not hear me before? THE FACT THAT THE GAP EXISTS IS SEXIST IN AND OF ITSELF. The gap is not explained by previous work experience. tens of thousands of researchers in economics, sociology, public planning & policy, human resources management have studied it, you don't have to postulate shit, just use your ears. When you control for everything there is still an unexplained wage gap. Trust me, you didn't solve the problem. "yet goes on to explain it which is a textbook argument from ignorance fallacy" It factually isn't. You're either blatantly lying or weren't listening. *"most nonpartisan analysis agree that this part of the wage gap is directly due to gender discrimination. By the way, you can find links and lots of sources in the doobly-doo".* That's not an argument from ignorance, it's scientific data that you simply refuse to acknowledge.
" *_We know that is due to discrimination_*" Oh sweet, Mr. Green is going to offer evidence of this now right?? Oh wait no he isn't, hes just going to assert it. *_Correlation = Causation_*, so sayeth Mr. Green.
+Hokibukisa looking for someone who made this point and you are right. Just because you can't explain somehting doesn't make it discrimination god or whatever other talking point. You have to prove it. Nice
You're right, but without further evidence its difficult to say that it isn't due to discrimination either. At this moment, we just don't know, and that's that.
+Hokibukisa The exact quote is, “Most non-partisan analyses agree that this part of the pay gap is directly due to gender discrimination. By the way, you can find links to lots of sources in the doobley-doo.” John never said he was an expert, nor did he make solid, unequivocal claims like you suggest. He is just reporting his research on the findings of social scientists who have studied this topic.
if 4-8% is unexplained, there are literally hundreds of factors which could explain why (women's holidays, men's unique propensity to negotiate wages (which alone can explain 5% of the gap), maternity leave, to name a few) and yet you resort to discrimination without question - bias at its finest.
The notion of "unpaid work" is complete nonsense. First, let's be clear about how much work is actually being done. Here's some relevant data: www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/14/men-women-work-time/1983271/ So we see that mothers tend to do 17.8 hours of housework, while fathers tend to do 9.8 -- this study however does not count time spent doing yardwork or home repairs, traditionally male chores, but we'll ignore that for now. Neither partner is being paid for this labor, which means that we can discount the time spent by the father from the mother, leaving a net deficit of 8 hours per week. We're also going to ignore that single women do more housework than single men (by about 4 hours), while married men do more housework than single men, which indicates that women have a higher standard of cleaning and thus almost half of the deficit in housework is entirely a result of keeping the house clean to her standard rather than a standard between his and hers. Though it's worth noting that when you combine this factor with the previous factor we've ignore, the deficit in housework essentially vanishes. But whatever, let's just keep pretending that it's really true and meaningful that women do 8 hours of unpaid work every week that is SOLELY for the benefit of a man, and not at all about their own personal standards. So 8 hours a week, 52 weeks in a year, adds up to 416 hours of unpaid work. A housecleaner charges on average $25/hour. This means the unpaid work done by the average woman is equivalent to about $10,400/year. The average family is a two-income family earning a combined $79,100/year. On average the wife earns 40% of this total while the man earns 60% of this total. This means the wife is bringing in $31,640 versus the husband's $47,460. This means that the husband is contributing $15,820 more to the combined wealth of the family than the wife. If we add in the entire $10,400 (which, again, is essentially paying her for having a higher standard than him) we find the family is essentially earning $89,500, of which the wife is contributing $42,040 versus the husband's $47,460. The result is a -$5,420 deficit to the wife. What this means is that the average woman would need to do AT LEAST 5 more hours of housework PER WEEK over and above what she already does in order to even begin to complain about "unpaid work," as the average American woman is clearly a freeloader letting her male partner do more work to support her than she does to support him.
Oh, and here's one more point: With the median marriage lasting 45 years, and using the same kind of spurious math you use to make claims like the one you make at 1:48 (that women lose over $240 million/year to discrimination), we find that the average man loses $243,900 over the course of his marriage due to his wife's freeloading. With roughly 60 million married couples in America, and still using the kind of spurious logic you're using, I can apparently make the claim that marriage costs men $14,634,000,000,000. That's right, marriage costs men FOURTEEN TRILLION dollars. That's the tax men pay for women's laziness. Add to that $14 trillion the $22 trillion in wealth that is transferred from men to women due to men's shorter lifespans, and suddenly I can make a ridiculous claim like "Over the course of their lifetimes, men of my generation will transfer $36 trillion dollars to women in exchange for nothing at all."
+Wolf of the West women do the majority of the work when they become mothers. men don't bother to change diapers lol From your analysis I am also getting men need to learn how to clean, because usually women have to do what men did AGAIN just so that it is actually clean. Up your performance :P
***** you made a sweeping statement, and i responded with one. maybe you were lucky actually to grow up in a balanced family but unfortunately i don't see much of this rubbing off on you since so you easily put down women for what they contribute
***** no i don't take it this way. i don't psychiatric issues but thank you for pointing that out. i am sure this attitude serves you well in life, accusing people of psychiatric issues.. just because your uncle changed diapers doesn't mean this applies to everyone. i was using a stereotype (obviously), and there are exclusions like your uncle (obviously). Still, these are stereotypes for a reason. because your uncle will be congratulated for pitching in, which his wife's contribution is taken for granted even if i am sure she did more of that work. (don;t know for sure, maybe another outlier but this is the stereotype). all of this... has to be obvious.. and shouting CITATION NEEEDEDDDD is totally useless. and i am not your honey. you got much to do to be entitled to call me this.
***** you need anger management. other than that, you are pretty reasonable. i agree stereotypes can be bullshit but if you have to address every.single.one.person i am going to have to write a thesis! and youtube ocmments is certainly not the place. now chill out and stop calling people names.
Wages being the hourly salary, for example earning $10 an hour, thats their wage. But earning is how much they earn overall, accounting for hours worked, profession, overtimem Its their income
a fixed regular payment earned for work or services, typically paid on a daily or weekly basis. "we were struggling to get better wages" synonyms: pay, payment, remuneration, salary, emolument, stipend, fee, allowance, honorarium; More
At my previous jobs, the women were treated way better than I ever was as a male and we're always given the easier, more cushy job, and we're simply earning more than me because they were pretty despite us being equals.. Lets talk about all the men have died fighting in wars, or being killed in any of the jobs women simply wont do. Whens the last time you've been to a closed casket for a female in the military? Nobody talks about that. Ya sure okay 4-8% pay gap is down to a never ending argument, how about the death gap? Nobody thinks about that type of discrimination of men.
+Latiman95 i think it's pretty widely known that if you are a pretty woman that you will get treated easier. You'll get easier sentences if you commit a crime and be treated like a pwecious pwitty fwower
+Joe Bernard Jobs women won't do? The army was meant to descriminate women, it wasn't a personal choice by anyone. But when the U.S talked of letting women into the army, everyone was outraged because they "couldn't do the job". And during WW2, you might have remembered women just as well picking up the slack, taking place of the men back in the states to show support for our troops. The death gap is a product of belief women can't do the same. They "simply won't do" these jobs because they aren't allowed to.
AT one point my wife and I earned almost exactly the same PER HOUR. But she noticed that my take home pay was usually double what hers was. The reason? She worked 40 hours a week whereas I worked on average 65. And keep in mind that the extra 25 hours were overtime, paid at time and a half. Since the "pay gap" ONLY looks at average annual pay, that would show up that I earned almost double what she does and definitely contribute towards the unfair "pay gap" even though we earned the same per hour. As far as "unpaid" labor, every time I see one of those lists as to which gender does the percentages of housework, it seems like they NEVER include things like yardwork and home repair. So aside from each week I work about 25 hours more paid hours at my job, on most weekends I usually do 3-5 hours of yardwork and about an equal amount of home maintenance and ONLY THEN, once I bring out the vacuum does my work around the house seem to count. I'm the one who brings the laundry hamper to the washer and since I just did that, I'll go ahead and get it started. Since wet laundry is heavy, I'll be the one who switches loads and then carry the clean laundry baskets back to the bedroom. If most women are like my wife, they will do endless amounts of complaining that the man is the slob while they have to do all the housework and it makes them feel like they have to be the mother to an adult child. Meanwhile, I look around and see someone sitting on the couch playing Candy Crush while not only have I done an extra 25 hours of work this week in order to pay for another cruise so she can get away from her hectic schedule, but then also I'm the one who has done the majority of the work around the house while she sits there and claims that I would live in a pig stye if it wasn't for her. NO ma'am, I'm the one who did the work but you are so delusional that you believe that you did most of it. Sorry ladies but if the roles were reversed and you were the ones who worked those extra hours, we' easily have ALL the housework done.
Yes. Yes it is. But it's not illegal to push entire demographics towards lower-paying jobs through an insidious cocktail of accepted biases and unconscious discrimination. Next time watch the whole video before you start waggling your fingers.
+mlax141 Haha, chew on that feminists. Really though, too many people are too different for there to be equality. The sooner we understand that there will always be differences, the less likely our world will end up like a dystopian fiction novel.
I don't agree with his form of discussion, but I didn't hear him say the wage gap was large. It can be as much as 15% against women, but most of the statistics show that only 4-8% of that is not quantifiable. The problem is when people take that 'not quantifiable' and say it's code term for sexism. Even he said that the data shows a 4-8% gap that was not definable. There is sexism there, but it does not correlate heavily on the gap. There is also the issue with using statistical analysis for a philosophical or political bias. The wage gap has become that. It's simply an earnings gap, bolstered by many factors. One of the smallest of those factors (15% gap, only 4-8% of that gap could be sexism and other factors) is any form of slant against women. This is the problem with data, it doesn't explain what it can't explain. TL:DR There is no large wage gap, there is a visible earnings gap, John never said there was a 'large wage gap', and the causes of this gap are mostly figured out as far as the data that could be collected. If he said those words, I apologize. I have been wrong before. Could you please point out where he said those words? Thank you.
I still disagree with parts of this video, but thank you very much for your level of nuance and lack of pointing fingers in this video, John. I believe both sides of gender issue debates would be able to come together much more easily if they discussed them the way you do.
+Andrew “TheMunz” Munzer This was horrible, you can tell by how he kept bringing up that woman work more on household chores.. as if that is a favor in how much an employer should pay someone. Woman are less likely to stay late at work, do dangerious jobs, do physially difficult jobs, miss a fucking piano recital.. whereas men do. We die 9-10 times more than woman because we take on higher pay higher risk jobs. Its not discrimination that woman don't work on oil rigs or coal mines.
+MGTOW FTW I don't think the point is that women should be paid for chores and stuff, it's that men should take on more of that unpaid workload and thereby give women more time to do paid work.
John McLaughlin If a man is ok with laying in filth its his right not to clean his house, its a personal choice. Men don't care as much about a clean home as woman do. Do woman need to work on cars as much as men? Kill spiders as much as men? Defend their homes from invaders as much as men? No, they are personal choices.
***** Sorry, let me rephrase, every man I have ever met cares less about clean house than woman I have met. It's totally anecdotal. I know male dorm rooms are fucking disgusting, but again that isn't proof.. I'll look for a study though.
However, that is also just an assumption for the starting wage. Also, the one study showed that resumes from females got lower starting wages. That would be without negotiation.
+Drama_Llama_5000 Probably because of one of two things:1. women are more likely to accept low wages and not ask for more.2. people assume men are the financial providers of families, therefore they need more money for their wife and kids.
of course its an assumption but I didn't mean only the starting wages. you can ask for an increase later too. (i meant this without any connection to the resumes.)
+warxdrum Yeah, I'm just referring to the gap present in the video. Also, the likelyhood of women asking for raises and employers assuming the man is providing for the family fall under the social expectation part of this. Definetly a very complex thing.
Yes and no. Women get paid the same for the work provided, sure, but if a woman leaves earlier than her male counterpart or has other priorities than your company, would you still want only females in your company? Would you still give those same women a promotion over the males who show such loyalty to your company, just for the fact you save money over a year? Especially since those same women will not be there as much as the men would. Hyperbolic argument, misogynist, sexist, anti-feminist, neck beard, can't find a woman, whatever else. Anyone have an actual argument, rather than an insult? I've been doing this a while.
Jay Tee That is what you were saying, I was simply pointing out that you have a good chance of NOT getting the same amount of work from a woman as you would a man. A man's priorities, as he ages, is to make money. That's good for the company. A woman's priorities become things outside the company as she ages. That is BAD for the company. If you can get the same work from women as men, then they will get the same pay, yes. Good luck with that, unless the man is married and the woman is not.
Jay Tee Would you want them doing the work you do? I'm not talking about the minority of women that actually get stuff done to the level of a man and sometimes better, I'm talking about the vast majority.
+Adam Baker that is something that's never really addressed in these studies, and i can imagine it would definitely make a difference, but that's why he brought in studies that focused on workers in specific fields 'n whatnot.
+DaedricSheep true that. seems like the most pertinent point is that income disparity derives primarily from total hours worked, in which females lose out on due to child care. I'm not sure if that's necessarily bad though. A big topic for a different kind of conversation I suppose
+Adam Baker Happens for the same reason why there are more Male Doctors(Which Doctors are also part of the 1%.). More Men apply themselves to being more successful, and unlike employees working for companies, these CEOs are handed money by people like you. So essentially, your comrades are the reason why most of the richest people in America are the richest people in America.
+Kyle Dean i dont have any money and if i did i wouldnt hand it to anyone. oh and none of my comrades are rich either. you should write fiction. youre good at completely making stuff up. ill even crowd source you!
+Adam Baker There are more very intelligent men than very intelligent women(women have a narrower/taller bell curve of intelligence) and income has a .9 correlation to general intelligence so yes men are overly represented at the highest levels on income, but they are also more competent than women on the right side of the bell curve. OF course it should balance out with the larger number of very low intelligence men at the other end of the bell curve, but because of minimum wage, unemployment benefits, etc... the curve is normalized at the low end.
There is a common misconception about the wage gap and despite what it's name would imply it isn't calculated by comparing paid wages. It's actually calculated by dividing the earnings of women by the earnings of men with any given time frame. That's because, like you stated, it would be far more lucrative for a business to employ more women than men if you could get away with paying them less. I'ts not about women getting paid less than a man for the same work. It's about women earning less than men over a stated period of time. I wish they would call it the earnings gap but feminist propaganda prevails. What I'm about to type isn't representative of all men and woman but is offered as an analogy to how the wage gap is determined by using earnings instead of paid wages. I'm not saying that every woman or man fits these descriptions but it's representative of the statistics across the board. Imagine a man and a woman both get hired at meat packing factory for the same hourly wage. Over the course of a year the man chooses to stay more often to work overtime and chooses not to take days off for his children. The women chooses to work overtime only when it's mandatory. She chooses (or is obligated to) to take multiple days off for school events, doctors appointments, etc. Now if we were to individually add up the man and woman's earnings over a year then divide the woman's total by the man's total it would show that he earned more money at a certain percentage. That's the wage gap. So why do people call the wage gap a feminist myth? Because feminists don't understand the difference between earnings and wages. They blame the, so called, misogynist male patriarchy for paying women lower "wages" instead of recognizing that the gap is based on earnings. It's not that that gap doesn't exist when you look at the data. It's that the data exists because women and men are freely allowed to makes choices and that, on the whole, they tend to make different choices that affect how much they earn.
and if women really earned less than male counterparts they could just go to their boss and ask for more and if they don't they could sue.. if you know.. she really has done the same work and hours as men..
P1Tz0N csgo Women can't sue for discrimination simply because they earned less than a man and their employer didn't want to pay her for work she hasn't done. When one person earns more than another person who's making the same paid wages it always comes down to hours worked. So if two people making the same paid wage work a different number of hours one person is naturally going to earn more than the other.
"The 77 cents to $1 pay gap is a myth!" "It's closer to 8 cents, for which the data doesn't reveal an answer and is unexplained!" ???? "That which is unexplained must obviously be due to sexism!" This is underpants gnome logic.
That is what we call a fallacy. He could be right, however his logic does not point to sexism causing the wage gap. It's also circular reasoning: there's a pay gap so it must be sexism which causes a pay gap. That logic sounds more like the start to an echo chamber to me. Still love the vlogbrothers (no sarcasm).
Yeah, it's funny. I never called a girl "babe" yet they always called me that or "honey". I actually like being called a pet name. It's sweet and makes me feel good. I wish people could just say, "I like that" or "I prefer no nicknames, please." Sucks everything is generalized and I can't call girls these endearing names :( Guess I'll have to stick to "Sarah"
It's not his logic, it's very careful research--look at the references he provided before making the claim that it's a logical fallacy (if you have and still think that, that's up to you). And how can you explain away the fictitious resumes that proved men were more likely to be offered jobs and to be offered higher salaries, especially if the applicant had children?
***** To address the fictitious resumes, and I'll be very clear here, as an employer I would find it unprofessional and inappropriate for someone to put down they are a parent to try to gain leverage to get a job. It would make me feel that you would prioritize being a parent over work. Yes, it is important to put family first, but in the process of getting a job it isn't "work force" experience and therefore would be out of place. Further along in the hiring process would be a better time to bring it up even though I believe both should be separate. It's like saying, "I have serious priorities over getting this job so I should be the first to get this job." It has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with the first impression of the resume.
"Significant" is a word that has a scientific meaning beyond the colloquial use as a synonym for "a lot". It refers to statistics: When you have a difference of 5% or lower it is used to say that the difference ist so low that it could well be due to chance. For example, when you toss a coin and get 45% heads and 55% tails the result would count as non-significant, a.k.a. "based on that we cannot claim that the coin tends towards heads because the difference between results is too small."
@@RandomizedCTRL you think that the studies haven't taken this into account? also if differences of less than than 5% are suddenly evil there are still many studies which out it higher than that, indicating that it is both statistically significant (that the pay gap exists). i just don't get what point you're trying to make with this. im very aware of the different meanings of significant, but its usage is relative to context. differences of less than 5% can mean a lot, especially in economics. we don't just throw out economic studies of say, inflation, that notice a less than 5% change just because its a relatively small amount. statisticians don't just blindly throw out anything they get that's below 5% just because it's low, especially in this case where other studies corroborate it.
I think we can all agree that at least in the us 🇺🇸 the pay gap exist but not because of gender. There are dozens of variables that are not acointed in. Such as jobs that women take, more women take care of children at home, men tend to work more hours, etc. The gender part of the lay gap cannot exist because it is literally illegal to pay someone less for the same job just because of race or GENDER. Unless the business wants to be sued.
@@Holy_VHS_Tape no no you don't understand, the 4-8% pay gap TAKES THOSE INTO ACCOUNT. you think researchers didn't think about that in the dozens of studies on this?
+Dominic LaSalle from the employer's point of view how is that different than paid vacation? In both cases a person is being paid for not being at work. Whether is is to give birth, go to Hawaii or have some none pregnancy related procedure done it is all time off.
Paid Maternity leave is not a law in my state, in fact getting it and taking it without getting spontaneously fired for "other reasons" is very rare... there is still a pay gap.
Maternity leave doesn't account for the whole 4%. But it does factor in. Taking maternity leave does negatively affect pay. The funny part is a woman will recover from this deficit faster than a man will if he takes the same amount of time off. However many more women will take extended leaves due to children than men will. So this situation affects them more. Having children is difficult on the body. If you're planning on having children soon it may discourage you from seeking a promotion to a more demanding job. This usually isn't the case for men who will become more aggressive when the added expenses of children are looming. Employers are also skeptical of women having children. Training someone to do a job then having to have another person cover for them is can put a lot of stress on employees. Many women will choose not to return to the workforce once they realize child rearing IS A FULLTIME JOB. So the company will have a high likelihood of turnover if they have an expecting mother to a position.
Talk about a line of misleads. Where do you get this "Work more Unpaid Hours" info without having to pay for it? Because I keep getting promt'd to buy Excel Office. Now I'd like to know what counts as "Routine House Work" did you pay for all of the data? Does being in the home reading a book while your underage kids are there count as unpaid work? Basically does babysitting your own sleeping 6mo or 16 years count to unpaid hours? I'd also like to know if Travel Time is counted as part of this Unpaid work and where the break down of how far a female vs male spends traveling to work each week? Or does sitting in traffic for 22 hours a week not count, because I get to listen to the radio and that's fun right? And where is this paygap for Single men and women with no kids? How many single non parents were polled over married people. Because as a Single male, I do 100% of my own UNPAID housework. And with Married couples coming in at about 59% of US house holds, the stats you gave seem to touch on Married couples or maybe Single Mothers, but with no clear data shown if Single fathers were counted. You can't say there is a Pay Gap in the open but there is a whole bunch of factors we need to figure in to explain it without getting into religion and just glossing over free choice to work less paid hours but then claim that unpaid housework needs to counted for REASONS without explaining why only housework is counted. (I mean I travel almost 2 hour to work 5-6 days a week and I don't count it as work because I'm not paid for my travel) Is this how you twist the data to make your claims. I can't believe you would pass this for as cold hard facts after you explain the data could be cherry picked, which you clearly did yourself. For the first time John, You have come off as untrust worthy to me. Wow. thanks for taking that away from me John. Kinda ruins for me, all the great work you and your bother have done because now I have to examine everything you say to make sure you're not lying, which seems like more unpaid work.
+Evil Power Oh I'd also like to know where tax breaks for families that are pumping out kids and where are these same Tax breaks for single men and women that don't marry or have kids and how this effects over all earnings. See I can't find this info because it's behind pay walls and I don't make the kind of money to continue to debunk your video.
+Evil Power .youtube . com/watch?v=Lc1IKDsvO3E What is a stay-at-home mom worth? This is the blue pill pandering, the excessive praise you hear from a husband about his wife, it is flattery, but on a societal scale. Are home depots filled with just contractors and women? Because this is the world these people like to pretend exists. If only it were true that most wives were handy women who could fix cars to toilets. Companies have tried to sell women power tools by making them pink, this wouldn't be necessary at all if they had been the primary buyers all along.
+Evil Power Brilliant point, who exactly is supposed to pay me to spend quality time with my son while my wife is out getting her hair done? Where's my paycheck for doing my own dishes? What corporate entity would subsidize my power use for using my laundry machines? Those hours shouldn't have been taken into consideration in this context. We're discussing the pay gap for time worked on the clock, this argument for considering time off the clock is irrelevant.
+Airoch4 Umm its not irrelevant because those are mutually eclusive but interdependent events. The more you have to work off the clock the less you can work on the clock. So even thugh you as a person may feel like u did a whole lotta nothing the whole day...in general women are left with household chores as a their gender-imprinted expectations. While I dont believe women are the only victims of society, they are a victim nonetheless. So I dont feel the need to decline the wage gap to feel sympathetic towards male-centric problems, like persecution of male nurses, non-athletic men and men who simply express their emotions.
+Evil Power Calm down, you don't have to question all the work John and Hank does because of a single video, in which John doesn't lie on purpose, he just fails to see the whole picture. You are being quite harsh on him.
I heard that women are also less likely to ask for a raise in salary or position. So maybe those male librarians who become library directors were more likely to ask for the promotion than their woman counterparts. Anyway, thank you for doing our homework for us, John
Did he say it was explicit malice towards women? Data demonstrates a bias between sexes: strictly based on definitions, this pay disparity is sex-based, therefore sexism. That doesn't mean men or the powers that be are intentionally paying less...the data we've been given here doesn't demonstrate that. But it does give us a starting point: we know there's a pay disparity across countries, careers, and income levels: how can we determine the causes of this?
No, that's the funny thing about unexplained phenomena, we dont know what causes them, so we only have ideology and guess work to go on. However, if businesses could save 4-8% on labor by only hiring women why would they ever hire a man?
Here's the possibilities that he eliminated: -Skill levels -Occupation types -Employment rates -Education levels -Levels of experience Here's all the possible explanations left: -Gender inequality -It's all a lie????? I don't know???? That's as narrowed down as it gets.
What I find sad but ironic is how demeaning the placing of blame of the choices portion of the wage gap is. For example, the liberals like to talk about societal expectations but its talking down to women. Women arent capable of making their own choices? Why is it that they are the 7:1 majority in being veterinarians? Not vet science like vet techs. Full on vets. A once male dominated field completely taken over by females. Why? Women wanted to do it so they did. Im all for women empowerment but then you cant complain about how they choose to live
gjaddajg Correct me if Im wrong but democrats are liberals and republicans are conservative. Almost all feminists and SJWs vote democrat therefore they vote liberal. Tell me where Im wrong. I personally believe that feminists/SJW's are nearly fascist but in terms of how liberal and conservative are used in this country, they are called liberals
+gjaddajg well here is where we have an issue. are we running off of the real definition of these terms like in a dictionary or are we using them as they are enacted now a days? the political party the Democrats believes itself to be a liberal and progressive party while acting in a manner and pursuing a system close to fascism. The "liberal" colloquially party of the US is the Democrats so they are called liberal and are what most people refer to when talking about liberals. Based off how they act, it is a bad description. This is similar to when feminists bring up the textbook definition for feminism but fail to see that what they do is not in line with the definition. The current political left is becoming more and more fascist.
This is easily the best take on the pay gap because he brings up factors outside of the job itself and how it’s not about getting paid less in the job itself
The average full time male worker works 42 hours per week. The average female full time works 38.5 hours. Before women have children they actually make 1.1% more then men. After they have children, they tend to take more time off then men. Christina Hoff Sommers, a feminist academic has addressed this many times. let's drop the nonsense about saddling women with non-paid household duties. You could just as easily complain that men are saddled with an unfair portion of the financial obligations.
Additionally, men are more likely to put in 60 hours in a week or more. They also constitute more than 92% of workplace deaths. Interesting that feminists never complain about the gender disparity of workplace deaths. Men are more likely to spend extended time away from their families. If men really make 23% more than women for the same work why does anyone hire men?
+Travis Gibby "Interesting that feminists never complain about the gender disparity of workplace deaths." What are you suggesting? Will randomly shooting kindergarten teachers to get an equal number of deaths solve your problem with this? "Men are more likely to spend extended time away from their families." In which case, the woman needs to stay at home - otherwise the kids will be on their own. (Leading, in this case, to women having to take off time from work - cause the kids are sick or need to be taken care of - because the men aren't there to help.) Why women don't take off to work away from their families? Maybe, because they are still seen as "bad mothers", if they do that. If it's a guy, he'll be taking care of his family (and is really dedicated to this, because he's going to such great lengths)
Geno R "What are you suggesting? Will randomly shooting kindergarten teachers to get an equal number of deaths solve your problem with this?" I'm suggesting that feminists should be consistent. If you only care about parity in cushy/glamourous jobs, then you aren't really concerned about gender equality at all. You're only concerned about pushing a narrative. "Why women don't take off to work away from their families? Maybe, because they are still seen as "bad mothers" Nonsense, my mother worked about 60 hours a week and often traveled. No one saw her as a bad mother. She also made more money than my father. Funny how that works isn't it?
Travis Gibby Do teachers, nurses, shop assistants, secretaries really have cushy/glamorous jobs? Sure, they don't risk death on a daily basis, but working night shifts at a hospital isn't cushy.... If you care only about consistency, your own death toll argument is pretty inconsistent. Women had to fight quite a while until they were allowed to join the army - and even longer until they were allowed into combat situations. And you know why? Because the people in charge decided that they weren't strong enough. Now that they are allowed in, they still have to endure ridicule by quite a lot of people - and to be honest, I can completely understand it, if they do not want to be belittled and therefore choose to not pursue this career. That's once reason why women don't die as often on the job as men - because men do not like women doing these jobs and still (if not actively, at least still through prejudice etc) keep them from doing so. Either way, isn't this arguing the whole thing the wrong way around? Shouldn't we all go "Why are there so many men killed on the job and what can we do to prevent this?" instead of "Jesh, women, if you want more money, get yourself killed more often..."? As for your mother, great that you live in an area where this was accepted. I just know that where I live, women still tread on a narrow line between "Why aren't you working? Your kids are old enough for you to start working again/more." and "Why are you never there for your children?".
Geno R "Do teachers, nurses, shop assistants, secretaries really have cushy/glamorous jobs?" No. Politicians, STEM workers, CEOs, and software developers have cushy jobs. You know, the ones that feminists always complain are male dominated. "If you care only about consistency, your own death toll argument is pretty inconsistent. Women had to fight quite a while until they were allowed to join the army" It's 2016, not 1950. If you want a job in the army, enlist! No one's stopping you. In fact, they've made the physical fitness requirements lower for women than it is for men. That's a strange thing to do if they don't want women in the military. Even so, the majority of those enlisting in the military are men. It's almost as if men and women make different choices when it comes to their careers. But no, it can't be that... It's got to be discrimination.
So I clicked on this video on my lunch break on October 10th, 2022 and I didn't notice it was 6 1/2 years old until I was about half way through it... Now I'm wondering how things have shifted in these figures with everything that has happened over this 6 year period. Covid re shuffled a lot in most work environments not to mention the economy and the fact that we are currently in a very different political place then we were then. I'm genuinely curious about this and I would love to see a follow up video! Even though I can understand John not being enthusiastic about re-visiting such a controversial topic.
since this is a video about the unfair pay gap between men and women, this obstensively sounds like you are a) mocking the topic, and b) insinuating that men are movie stars (get better wages because they are "celebrities") and women are lumberjacks (provide a no longer lucrative service that soon will be outperformed by machines)
i don't have any idea where you got that all he said is they are paid different so why would you assume he is mocking women that are lumberjacks or men that are movie stars. It is incompetent to assume such a thing when he didn't even specify gender in the comment
So it's not something that requires direct change in the system but rather social change of mindset. This video helped me a lot with my perspective on it. The only thing I hope is that the information still holds up today since this video was released six years ago. But I don't think there could be a much better explanation for this, this video was super helpful and respectful! Thank you for being objective and neutral.
You guys need to chill. I understand you have you opinions and all but what John Green was make a claim, support it with evidence, and explain how the evidence relates to the claim. He was trying to fix a mistake he made with statistics in the past. So don’t get all up in his business. Stay safe, Random Person on the internet~~
trapd00rspider Well, depends on how you define splitting labor. If I go out and work a 9 to 5 job, I'd expect my spouse to do the housework. The labor would be split between: Me earning money so we can afford life and such, and my spouse maintaining a liveable, clean household, helping care for the children, and providing meals. If you ask me, that's split labor, yet - from what I understood from the video - there's something wrong with women working at home? Or, for some reason, women should be paid for working at home? In all honesty, I'm confused by it all, but maybe I'm just some dumb woman who needs feminism, I dunno :PPP
The segment on house work was more about, in my opinion, women are expected to do more work around the house. A lot of working women also have to go home after work and do chores and take care of children while it's not really expected of men to do that. Therefore, men can spend more time focusing on their jobs and not outside work.
***** OOkay! I don't nesscisarily agree with that point he made, but that DOES make much more sense as to what/why he was saying this. Thank you very much for clearing this up for me :)
+Cynthia King I know in America to live comfortably in a household with out living check to check both partners in a model family need to work. that's the reasons the phenomenon called the "Second Shift" is a reality. America isn't Egalitarian neither can an average household live comfortably with only one source of income. Unless of course the main source of income makes proportionately huge amount of money.
I'm not American, but my parents are (were) employers and I got to overhear some of their policies. Basically, they would try to avoid hiring young women who were either single or recently married, with no children. Their reasoning was, such women are likely to get married/have children a year or two down the line, which would mean taking a long time off work, which would somewhat waste all the time they spent learning the ropes, gaining experience, and would necessitate hiring a new person to replace them for their maternity leave anyway. (Sidenote: yes, most civilized countries have several months of paid maternity leave, America) So... was that discrimination? I mean, by definition yes, but on the other hand, isn't that kind of a fair point? If you can choose between someone you know is unlikely to be unable to work for months in a year or two, versus someone who is most likely going to be a stable employee for years... doesn't it just make sense to choose the latter?
It is very presumptuous to assume that all women even want to have children, as well as that if they do their husbands wouldn't take equal care for those children.
Scattered Moon Shards No one said "all"; but a 25 year old woman is more likely to have a child in the next 5 years than a 40 year old woman; this is statistically true. As for the other part... sure, the father might take equal care of the child... that still means the mother would be able to work less, just maybe not quite as much; also, maternity leave would still happen, the father can't exactly do half of the giving birth thing.
+Scattered Moon Shards Not really presumptuous when there's nearly a 50% ratio of women who have children in that age-group - according to the census information. And regardless of if the husband plans on being a stay-at-home dad, she will still have to take time off to deal with the later stages of her pregnancy.
+Satsaru I'm turning 27 this year and I'm pretty sure not more than 10% of my circles and people I went to school with have children so far. I'm not having any myself til I'm at least 35. The times are changing. Every parent should take the paid time off is what I'm saying (in the ideal world), so that's not an excuse, just plain greediness.
@@haydid no, it isn't. Men work more than women, period. Name a SINGLE business that intentionally pays women less. Why don't companies just hire women ad pay them less?
@@godsrevolver9737 It was joke video about simps making girls earn more than boys in streaming industries. I only said that wage gap is real, I never said men are paid more.
@@haydid so it isn't real, then. 🤦🏻♂️ "it's a joke" is probably the absolute dumbest defense I've ever seen. Was it a joke even though you didn't OBVIOUSLY convey that it was a joke?
I don't know why there are still comments saying the difference in the wage gap is due to preferences in jobs or differences in skills. The 4-8% is comparing men and women working in the SAME occupation with same experience level and skill sets. They are NOT comparing a McDonald's worker to an engineer - they are comparing men engineer to female engineer. I love how people easily dismiss data when it doesn't support their beliefs.
+K0koK00koo If you include more lifestyle choices like distance to work, discomforts and hazards involved in the work the difference in earnings shrinks further. For instance comparing men engineer working with hazardous materials to female engineer who work with no hazardous materials. Dr Warren Farrell has written a book called "Why Men Earn More" explaining 25 lifestyle choices affect womens ability to earn money and this shows the wage gap to be myth.
Can you give the specific engineering field though cause I am pretty sure mechanical engineering is going to have a different salary then a medical engineer.
+K0koK00koo like he mentioned, the gap increases the older they are. what was missing was the reason behind it. when someone works more hours, that person will faster work himself/herself up the corporate ladder. which obviously leads to more pay. there is some percentage that is not conclusively established where it comes from. one of the factors may be discrimination or bias. BUT, there is currently no way to know. it is only in the realm of speculation and therefore should be regarded as such.
I appreciate your balanced and informed view on the matter instead of being another 77% of every dollar parrot. But i'd wish you went into more analyses of the 4-8% gender gap difference other than "unexplained economic difference, therefore sexism." Confidence in salary negotiations are a very gendered discrepancy between men and women that are not accounted for during entry pay.
+Eventhorizon1122 "unexplained economic difference, therefore sexism." Has anyone coined the term "sexism of the gaps" yet? If not I'm officially doing so now.
Last time I pushed for more pay I was told I didn't need it because I had a husband, so we were both earning enough (we did end up in a tribunal for a number of reasons but I wouldn't advise taking that option - it can often end in losing the job anyway). But, usually, when I press for more pay or better conditions and more flexibility (anything really), the answer is there's no money and, if we give _you_ a pay increase _everyone_ will want one.
+Eventhorizon1122 Maybe you are right, it's just because women don't enought confidence in negociations. But why is that? Do you think it's because they are different? I really think that we are all the same, maybe it's because of how men and women are treated different that women have less confidence and this make them earn less. The problem is there shouldn't be these differences based on gender, race, religion or anything else you can think of. We should be equal. (Or that is what I think)
+Gastón Salgado Are we really the same? Do we react to all scenarios the same? Different hormones govern us. Those hormones also effect our moods. Different parts of brains lights up between the sexes during certain tasks/activities. Sorry but biology does not agree with your feelings.
It feels like everyone has completely misunderstood what the points of this video are. SMH. Thank you for your summary of the evidence, John. You're awesome.
He confused the issues, there is an earnings gap, not a wage gap. White men make 0.70 for every 1.00 an Asian man makes, its not racism. Its hours worked and carriers chosen. If a White man chooses to work different carriers or less hours than an Asian man, he should not expected to be paid the same.
If a woman wants to make more money: . work more . invest in your career . choose your job instead of having babies . choose high payment jobs so simple
Rosangela Sena 1. wages go down in certain lines of work when more women chose that line of work. 2. it isn’t as broadly accepted for men to be at home with the kids as it is for women, so a lot of the time women don’t really have the option to split the work of caring for children equally with their partner
@@reinbere equally, most men don't have an option to be a stay at home dad. There is a reason that the current social "systems", including those governing relationships between men and women are the way they are. They have served us well for at least since the Achsenzeit, and they are not usually straightforwardly egalitarian. This is complex stuff
How come I never see the mention of how passive men tend to make less in the workplace as well? That is, studies have shown that men that have more "feminine" traits (oversimplifying it as hell, but honestly easiest way to convey it) or the "nice guys" essentially have the same pay gap. Undoubtedly there's discrimination at play as we can see from starting wages, but there's also a point to be made in the fact that men are socially groomed to be bold and fight hard for what they want when women are groomed to do the opposite. The result is women AND men who are passive and less likely to speak up about getting raises or promotions or making it known when they work the extra mile end up getting walked on in the corporate world. An easy way to see the correlation is to look at how many CEO's and other high paying positions in the corporate chain belong to people with antisocial personality disorder (that is, people who are more likely to throw their coworkers under the bus, see other people as tools, and are unable to empathize with others on a level that would prevent them from being brutal in climbing the corporate ladder). Women in general are more empathetic than men, and I feel that really does play more of a role than people give it credit for. I only bring up this topic because if people really want to eliminate the wage gap, they need to really look at root causes other than just dismissing as discrimination. That is part of the issue, but there are deeper more complicated social constructs at play as well that also effect men equally as much as women that are ignored. www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111904823804576502763895892974
+Pikayumyums Adding to this - Men are more likely to get promotions to higher positions than their female coutnerparts because they are more likely to be more vocal and determined about getting their positions while being less passive (as I mentioned in my above post - people with antisocial personality disorder are also far more likely to get promoted primarily because they have these traits, which are socially conditioned more towards men than women). Men are more likely to get offered higher salaries if they have children than women because of the different expectations. As a woman, it means that you are more likely to call out if your child is sick, more likely to work less hours and put in little overtime, less likely to come in if called on an emergency, and more likely to use up every single sick and vacation day you're allotted to due to childcare. For men, it tends to be the opposite, because if you have a child chances are you have to put in to get all the extra money you can for supporting them. This comes from the strong social construct that men are expected to be the primary supporters of the family financially while women are expected to be the primary supporters socially and emotionally. It honestly hurts men pretty much as well as women, as they are often expected to "toughen up" and sacrifice their own luxuries and free time for the sake of the family. Women are saddled with the responsibility of most of the unpaid work but also have the luxury of being more likely to get careers that are more enjoyable or fulfilling than men, who are often forced to get positions they may not exactly find enjoyable at all just because it earns money. For instance, people love the idea of advocating for more women engineers, but hate the idea of advocating for more women coal miners, sanitation workers, construction, etc. Those jobs tend to be very fulfilling and depressing to work in, but men will take them up for the money if they need to. Women can avoid them, usually. I appreciate the acknowledgement that it's a lot more complicated than just discrimination. It really is something we can change, but it takes a LOT of change. The largest and hardest portion to change is collectively changing our social and cultural constructs. It also effects more than just women though, as many of those issues aren't exclusive to women, they just happen to be the majority that it affects.
Samuel Swinton Never said it wasn't. Point is more that it isn't distinctly a "female" issue so much as it is a personality archetype issue that females tend to fall into more often than males. The key to solving the issue is finding the actual core of it, rather than looking at the surface.
Well, I applaud you for at least saying that the gap is not as large as the often quoted 30%. The remaining gap is still troubling, and we cannot just ignore it either.
It's not troubling. All but 4-8% (as he said) is due to choice, not discrimination. That remaining 4-8% that is discrimination is due to mothers statistically taking more sick leave to tend to their children than fathers do, so companies are less likely to hire and promote mothers. Also some studies have found first time fathers actually increase their hours of work. Basically it makes better business sense to hire fathers over mothers. Overall this last bit of discrimination isn't due to sexism. So there is nothing troubling about the wage gap - it's just men and women making different choices.
@@hrthrhs My bad, you said “all but”, I just didn’t see that at first glance. You’re still wrong though. I have a couple questions cuz I’m a bit confused by your argument. You said that the fact that companies prefer to hire men rather than women because mothers are statistically more likely to take sick leave and take care of kids is not discriminatory, right? That actually is discriminatory, not all women choose to be mothers, it’s discriminatory to deny women jobs because of the assumption that women are not going to work as much just because mothers are more likely to do so. Correct me if I am wrong (because I usually am), but that sounds like discrimination to me.
Great video! I really like that you reevaluated your previous position and came to more nuanced understanding. Gender pay gap is real but there's a lot of misinformation about it and this helps get rid of that nonsense.
Its real but not because of gender it is other factors. I mean there is a literal law that says companies cannot pay someone less for the same work especially if they are being paid less because of gender or race. If sexism was the main reason all women should just sue the company and get paid tons of money. Or perhaps there are other variable that cause the wage gap like oh I dunno men work longer hours, women tend to work lower paying jobs, men are working higher paying jobs, women tend to stay home and take care of the kids, men are more flexible in change of schedule, and men are more likely to arguing to get a raise just to name a few possible variable. And this is all just on average because there are plenty of women who work good paying jobs and work long hours and the same for men who stay home and watch the kids.
@@Holy_VHS_Tape Something being illegal doesnt make it immediately enforceable, and its difficult for a woman to prove that her making less than a man is discriminatory in court
This is the best and most balanced analysis I've seen so far, but still done by someone with a strong liberal world view (which I share), who thus comes to conclusions which his own research doesn't exactly support = the 4-8% pay gap is due to sexism! He mentions that some of it is do to women's own self-empowering choices to work less, or pursue other interests. What percentage is that? What he doesn't even mention as any possibility, is that women on average (with lots of exceptions) may not work quite as hard. This may be completely false, but it's a possibility that it's forbidden for the left to ponder. This is closely related to questions of why there are more blacks in prison. We can attribute it all to racism, but there's also the sticky question of very real crimes committed. Also, if non-whites are performing less well in college, it is always because of racism, and it can never be called into question that maybe they just aren't trying as hard. However, if Asian excel at school it is always because of hard work, and if whites do it's because of "white supremacy". His conclusion was a foregone conclusion, but he did a lot more research to substantiate it, and for this he should be congratulated. But I question his objectivity and willingness to ponder politically incorrect factors. If, when we take into consideration that some women make empowering decisions which lowers their pay, the margin of difference is some 3%, that's a mere 10% of what we've been led to believe. No matter how much we get upset over, let's call it a 5% difference, we must ask ourselves why we've been sold a 30% difference? Further, if these jobs are taken on average, were CEO salaries - the exponentially largest, and mostly going to men - taken into consideration? If you spread those astronomical salaries among all men, that's going to kick up the mean male salary. It seems that while men on average make 5% more money than women, it doesn't really mean they make that much more for performing the same job to the same level of "productivity". In reality, it may be that the male CEOs account for much of the pay gap, most men are paid the same wage as women for the same job, but in the popular mind every man gets paid 30 cents on the dollar more than every women for the same exact job. Thus, while the roughly 5% difference in pay MAY be at least partially due to sexism (perhaps at the top of the pay scale), the popular portrayal of men (in American) as being so backwards and selfish that they underpay women by 30 cents on the dollar is a sexist dehumanization of men. He forgot to mention that over 90% of on the job fatalities are suffered by men. Of course, sexism is absolutely real, brutal, cruel, and even deadly in many parts of the globe (Pakistani honor killings and the gender disparity in China come immediately to mind), but MAY be exaggerated in America for political and politically correct reasons (agenda, narrative, and world view). Still, the very best analysis I've seen so far, and the only one that's willing to look from multiple angles with a huge amount of objectivity. I'm not 100% persuaded, but I don't think he'd want me to be.
Good ol' youtube commentors:
John: "This is a very complex issue, and here are the complex reasons and why they're complex."
Comments: "My super simple cliche of an answer is totally the only reason."
Given the content of the video and many of the comments, it seems like the inverse is happening a lot.
+dave19941000 not really.
Matthew Black If you look at the top rated comments, you'll find that actually yes, really. The brothers even dismiss facts openly in some of their responses.
+dave19941000 like which ones?
Christian Isbister Their response to BBBuild12 comes to mind
"Hopefully without inciting a flame war in the comments"
Good luck with THAT one.
+Leap Of Faith All things considered there's a bit of fire but not quite flame war yet.
Too late...
+Leap Of Faith lol he took a leap of faith?
...
I'll see myself out
+hannathesinger he took that leap, and as a nerd, crashed and split his pants.
I belive it was a valiant effort that may change some people's minds... maybe....
PSA: Do NOT read the comments if you want to keep your faith in humanity. Dear lord...
+CodeDarkBlue Sometimes when I'm done clipping my toenails, I like to bend the clipped toe nail using my teeth.
With education why can do something about this, dont lost your faith
+CodeDarkBlue
Sometimes the most futile fights are the fights that are most important to fight! :D
+CodeDarkBlue watch this RUclips video if you want to live in Johns make believe paper town fantasy world for 13 year old girls, better than twilight
+CodeDarkBlue Yup.
And this doesn't even address the most frustrating part of the "explained" pay gap to me: how jobs that women move into lose status and then lose pay. For example, back when school teachers were mostly authoritarian men it was a highly regarded well-paid profession. Then slowly more and more women started to take up this vocation and both the prestige of it and the compensation for it went down dramatically. Collectively, women can't seem to win.
I don't know if that is about the genders involved.
Many, many jobs have experienced stagnating wages and a loss of prestige, regardless of the demographic that fills them.
It seems like a broader societal issue, imho.
@@hhiippiittyy There has been some serious research done into this effect. Obviously, there are also broader trends and not all stagnating wages are down to this, but it is definitely a thing.
The reason that many jobs have lost prestige and pay is because women got into them before if you wanted to hire a teacher you could only hire from 50% of the population but now you can hire from 100% of population however the demand for a teacher didn't go up as much because each teacher can teach up to 20 or 30 people once you double the supply of labour but the demand kind of stays the same you can expect a loss of value in each unit relative decrease in wages have been happening since women entered the workforce in many professions actually not only teachers (sorry for bad English)
@@mani_saber If this is true then it would make sense. Not anyone's fault individually and women definitely deserve to seek any (legal) profession they want; the diluting of the job market was just inevitable and still supports the commenter's point that women just couldn't/can't win. I mean, it was a net gain since at least they can do the job they want to do, but being paid less than people before you definitely hurts.
There's also such a thing as supply and demand. IF both men and women can work a job, then the pay can go down cause there's just more people to do it. If I was the only school in a 20 mile radius and my application pool doubled due to both sexes now applying for the few jobs I'd previously had, I'd just cut wages and hire more people, which could in turn get me more money from the government because we can get more kids or increase the actual value of the education provided since people can focus solely on specific topics, thus turning it into a private school (at least back in the day) to rake in money as well. There's no reason for me to pay a premium to attract people to apply to what maybe wasn't the "cool job" that most kids turned adults didn't want to focus on or go into in the first place when I don't need to anymore.
The illusion that you "Can always be replaced" is kind of what stagnates jobs in this day and age. If your boss threatens that they could have someone in here tomorrow, what's the point of ever raising your wage? Someone would be fine having what you have now. If the pool of applicants suddenly decreased by a bit more than 50% (Because there are more women than men) they'd be way more keen to keep you and thus give you a raise as your talent is actually more valuable now. Same with hiring in general.
All this on top of everything he said like paid hours, education, skill, time off, choice of profession, etc. I work in IT and I obviously make more than a liberal arts major which more women would choose to go into in college. Remember, it's literally illegal to actually pay a women less for the same job, so if you do find a job where you're not actually getting paid the same amount of money per hour (Not accounting for raises and the like) you should be able to "Easily" sue and win since all you'd really need to start a case is a male colleague's pay stub vs your own for the exact same hours worked in the exact same position. Actually fight for your supposed income too, don't let people low ball your starting pay, yada yada yada.
Take the company to court if you believe you are getting paid less, it's against the law if its real.
+Bruce Dobson You know you can't take someone to court because you _think_ you're being discriminated against, right? You need evidence of it first.
***** Yes I know.
+w3irdo13 That's the point. No evidence means it's probably not happening.
If I told you I flew down to pick up groceries every couple days and couldn't provide you with any evidence of it (no proof of ownership of a helicopter or genetics proving I'm a human bird hybrid...), you could only conclude it's probably not happening.
And even if it is, you can't make something more illegal than illegal.
If you do not tell the cops that someone stole your car, it's not discrimination when they fail to get it back for you. And don't even start with the "but they need their jobs and can't risk it" argument.
Even if you don't tell the cops about your stolen car because you know for a fact that the person will kill you - as they even full on told you they would - if you say anything about your car, you are not being discriminated against.
Fear of repercussions from the perpetrater that keeps the victim silent doesn't mean there is "systematic discrimination" against that victim. And this is even worse, because it's being branched out to a group that victim happens to be in.
Using me in that example of a stolen car it's the equivalent of saying people who play games in the Final Fantasy series are discriminated against because I'm afraid to tell the cops that a law has been broken. I mean, I've played Final Fantasy games, so clearly this group I'm ostensibly a part of is oh so harassed.
I'm sure I could even find some studies to support such a claim (gamers were once much more looked down upon, after all, and even now hardcore ones like myself still are to some extent), but of course it would be fucking nonsense to even imply such a thing.
Tessa Bain "That's the point. No evidence means it's probably not happening."
Except there _is_ evidence. See: the video.
+w3irdo13 videos can tell lots of thing.
If i make a video where i say for every 1 dollar man earns women earn 2 dollars, would you believe that?
John Greene is proof positive that good, old fashioned logic with compassion (but not compromised by compassion) can still be found on the Internet. No ranting or railing or making fun, or picking the rhetoric of a single side. Just a well-reasoned explanation of the facts, and a plausible interpretation of them. It's a dying breed, but it still exists. Very refreshing.
+NoogahOogah It would be nice if I could just trust a "Here's a source, it must be factual", but enough 'feminist' studies have been published and spun that I'm kind of jaded. While he's putting a logical argument together, I can't trust the sources without researching them. Unfortunately, I'm either running into "can't connect to server" problems in source links or finding statistics that are based on a median or average, which still does not accurately portray the 1 man v 1 woman in the same job doing the same work.
Nick Stice I for one share your doubts. Statistics are the easiest kind of data to manipulate, and in the case of sex discrimination, it happens all the time. Even Greene admits that any discrimination would be 4% at most, and I'm quite sure there are factors besides primeval discrimination at play even in that small margin of difference. But Greene is definitely approaching the issue with much more fairness and nuance than most people, and I can tolerate even an extremely far out view when it is articulated with such thoughtfulness.
+NoogahOogah If you think you can go to 1 place to get all your info on any topic and trust it 100% and that place is giving you what you want to hear, you my friend are susceptible to bias.
+0zfer Isn't assuming people stopped after the first source also bias?
no... thats normal fact of life with SJWs
The women CHOOSE to do the unpaid work. Men living alone don't clean their homes. When they get married, they do MORE housework (because if they don't, their wives get annoyed?). Women value the life-work balance differently, and they take out time from careers to have children.
Can I just check something are you male or female or other
+Sophia B why would that matter?
What factors would consider women to value things differently?
the problem is it's 78 cents for women and $1 for men FOR THE SAME WORK
+Stephanie Lang
Well try to conjure the stereotypical image of the room of a man living alone... and then of a woman living alone..
Yes... generally men don't clean that often.
(which is quiet sad to be honest)
What do you call a female rapper?
77 Cent
😂
i think it would be funnier if you said .38 cents because thats .77 of 50c but maybe less people would get it at first so nevermind yours was funnier
Hmmmmmmm, the man is 50 cent....hmmmmmmm.
That's *more* than Fitty Cent!
One more obnoxious musician?
Nope. Turn back now. Don't look at the comments. You don't want to.
Get off your high horse, dude, I meant that the comment section is full of banal, repetitive arguments and idiots like you.
"Don't look at the comments" Why not? Maybe you will learn something.
But to be honest, no one in the comments section (on both sides) is going to change their opinions. Everyone's adamant that they're in the right.
Too late, bro. ;-; Game over, man, game over.
All I see is constructive criticism, but hah, whatever makes you feel better about your confirmation bias.
The only thing I have an issue with is your claiming that the unexplained paygap = discrimination. It is a likely assumption. But that's what it is: a somewhat good guess of how to explain the "unexplained wagegap"; but you made it sound like it were a fact which I disagree with.
Other than that, it was an excellent video. Thank you for making it.
Just to make sure: I still believe a big portion of the unexplained wagegap is due to discrimination, just not 100% of it. And I totally agree that 4-8% is a lot and definitely too much.
But if it is'nt discrimination what is it? Becuase in these studies and statistics they have counted away everything that makes sense to change the wage. And the only noticable diffrent that is left are the gender of the person. So right now with ta data we have I think It's pretty safe to say that it is discrimination.
But really what else do you think could explain it? Becuase I can't think of something wich is why I think this way.
+Iller Well it can't account for how men and women negotiate for their raises for example, can it? What if women are just more lenient and accept lower raises than men? I assume that's another reason why the pay gap grows with increasing age since this effect multiplies over time. I mean I'm not sure and it's just a hypothesis, but here you go :).
+What's Their Name Again? +DN Swag
Did not think about that, thanks :)
Hope that will be counted in with the statistics in the future
+What's Their Name Again? - "Other than that, it was an excellent video. " HAHA what? How can it be an excellent video if it just assumes as true the very thing it's trying to prove? That is a logical fallacy known as "begging the question."
If a business could pay women less, why wouldn't they just hire women?
+BF2Cavs If they pay women less, it's because they think women are incompetent and they would like to discourage women from working with them. So they'd keep hiring men because men are seen as more capable and having more potential for leadership roles than women. Male employees would also be promoted into senior positions and managerial positions at a faster rate than women.
+Khoo Wei Cyn no, just no
+BF2Cavs You need to acknowledge the reasons why women are paid less. When I was 13 my teacher told all the girls in the class its totally okay for people to refuse to employ us because 'we will just end up having babies anyway' and needing maternity leave or they would 'waste'; their time training us if we left to have kids.
At 13 i had enough common sense to see this happen and know it is wrong. What if im single, i pay just as much rent as a man. If i'm a single mum i rely on that income. If my partner cannot work for whatever reason. If i cant even have kids or don't want them. If you partner is a say at home dad. What if im gay, what then?
It's because on the whole it's so ingrained that women are no more then walking wombs and as a society we struggle to shake of traditional roles and expectations.
And yes, im planning on being a stay at home mum but until then I still need a job just as much as my male counter part.
+BF2Cavs hahah I know right? woman are more capable than men smarter even! but we pay them less for for better work!!! and not one evil capatolist businessman is exploiting this clear advantage over the competition with 100% female work force? ow sorry strip clubs do usually, lol.
, lol hahahahah jesus...lol
+BF2Cavs Yes, if business could really just pay women $0.77 for every $1.00 that men make, for the exact same work, then it would make sense to just hire women in order to cut on payroll costs.
Interestingly, it has been found that the gender pay gap closes between childless women and childless men around age 45. So this definitely seems to be due to the real and perceived handicaps suffered by working mothers and the tendency to pay men better once they become fathers.
On paper the men make more when they become fathers but the wife still lives the lifestyle without raking in the $$. I would be happier taking care of the kids instead of being at work. But that is seen as a burden and being att work as a privilege.
@@JustAboutToEat that's what I see too. The relationships I have been in indicate an expectation that they will be able to stay home with the kids more than me. After all her dad worked while here mother stayed home, her brothers work while their wives stay home, her sisters stay home while their husbands work. I feel like I'm the one being put in a box yet no one gives a damn.
Men work longer hours when they have kids and women work less
@@JustAboutToEat you do know how hard taking care of kids is right? It's not all sunshine and rainbows Taking care of kids is difficult and stressful and saying women should be happy to stay at home as their husbands provide for the family is stupid some women want a carer not just taking care of kid their whole lives woman shouldn't automatically be forced to take care of kids and stay at home and be happy with it
@@kayleechristley8861 "I would be happier taking care of the kids instead of being at work." that was what that person you replied to said. Instead you played the victim game and twisted their word and responded "....*saying women* should be happy to stay at home as their husbands provide for the family is stupid....". Cheap debate tactic.
If a 21st century woman, from let say the U.S., wants a career instead of taking care of the kids, then she should be discussing that with her male partner before procreate. Maybe some kind of arrangement (childcare) can be agreed upon. If there's no agreement, then find another mate or don't have kid at all. No one can legally force women to have kids in the first place. Social construct dictates that mother should take care of kids yes, but social construct is not a law. If you let society pressures you into be a stay-at-home mom, it's on you, maybe it's on your parents for not teaching you to break social construct, or maybe it's on your partner, or your friends, and so on. But most importantly, it's on you!
you didnt mention men are far more likely to negotiate for higher starting salaries and raises then women.
+JamesBacha Cite your source, please.
+JamesBacha True, and he also didn't mention that men share their salaries more often, which in turn leads to more effective negotiations.
That said, I'm still impressed by the ammount of data and perspective he managed to jam into a 6 minutes video. Way to go John
+bananafritter www.nber.org/papers/w18511.pdf
+bananafritter Look at the Freakanomics episode that John lists in the description. That fact is cited by a female Harvard economist.
+Nemo Tu Novi
Abstract:
"One explanation advanced for the persistent gender pay differences in labor markets is that women
avoid salary negotiations. By using a natural field experiment that randomizes nearly 2,500 job-seekers
into jobs that vary important details of the labor contract, we are able to observe both the nature of
sorting and the extent of salary negotiations. We observe interesting data patterns. For example, we
find that when there is no explicit statement that wages are negotiable, men are more likely to negotiate
than women. However, when we explicitly mention the possibility that wages are negotiable, this difference
disappears, and even tends to reverse. In terms of sorting, we find that men in contrast to women prefer
job environments where the ‘rules of wage determination’ are ambiguous. This leads to the gender
gap being much more pronounced in jobs that leave negotiation of wage ambiguous."
Sorry I didn't post this with the original link. You know how youtube can be. It's a 2012 study and I'm not sure if any other studies have come to the same results, but I still think it's something to chew on when discussing the 'unexplainable' part of the wage gap.
Couple quickie points:
1) Sexual discrimination is illegal in all portions of employment, including wages. If you have a wage problem, take it to court, not to Tumbler.
2) Women spend far more money than men in the market. Why? Because men turn it over to them. So while the point about women doing more unpaid labor is true on record, it is so very untrue in reality. Men give their wives so much money that it can easily be said that women make MORE money than men since they get to SPEND more money than men. It really doesn't matter whose check has the higher number when men are getting to use less of it at the store.
+Curtis Smale Hate to be that guy, but it's spelled Tumblr. Why? Who knows?
Alexis Burns
Seriously? And who makes these women feel they need all this shit? Men will take anything with a vagina. It's women that pressure themselves to be attractive.
As for gendered pricing, that is another one of the feminist myths that exist out there. TL;DR did a nice little expose on this where he showed the comparative ingredient differences and pointed out how the products are NOT the same even tho they appear to be the same. And often this is because of the physical differences between men and women but also because men often want things simple and don't desire the extra "3 in 1" and other nonsense. But all that is irrelevant as there is no one stopping women from buying male products and using those instead.
But let's suppose that gendered prices are alive and well and let's take the pay gap seriously as well.
www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35486308
This says that price gap is 7% and I've heard that the wage gap is 23%. So what about the consumer spending gap?
Oddly there is no data for this after 20 minutes of research. Almost like no one cares. But let's do some math to figure out what that number would have to be to balance things. If women make 23% less and pay 7% more then female spending SHOULD appear to be about 81-82% of men in total cost. So the market share should be split roughly 4:5 which means that 44.4% of spending should be done by women with 55.5% done by men. But women spend more money than men do in the market. Who knows how much because no one has a web page source. But the fact that women are spending more money than men shows that they are getting money from somewhere other than employment to do it. If they only spent what they earned then women would not be ABLE to spend as much as men. And where are women getting that money? Oh yeah, that's right, men. Usually through joint bank accounts within marriage. Man works, woman spends.
So like I said, women ARE making more money than men, and quite a bit more than 7%. But not all of it comes via a taxable paycheck through employment. Some of it comes through being married and sucking out sections of a man's paycheck.
Ben Garrison
A terrible sexist system created by women. It ain't men demanding women wear makeup or specific clothes. It's women competing with each other for men's attention which they are NOT required to do.
Alexis Burns
Congratulations on quote mining me and applying sophistry to the max. Try reading my entire post next time.
+Curtis Smale Hmmm. But if you're talking about man and wife, that's shared household income isn't it? If we're talking about meritocratic type wage earning, even if a wife were to get a lot of her husband's earnings, that would not be constituted within a pay gap and doesn't necessarily have any bearing on the issue of women having unpaid labor since she does not have any rights to his money legally. Same if the roles were switched. Because having that type of joint income (unless you have kids) is definitely 100% personal choice [except in extreme spousal support cases but I think we all know spousal support is bullshit and doesn't need to exist anyway so...]
Thank you for creating a nuanced, well researched video on this topic. I'm finding more and more lately gender issues are dealt with in polarized absolutes, neither of which stand up to criticism. In a sea of exaggerations both ways, you've managed to stick to facts and create an honest summation of the status quo, so thank you for providing information sans agenda!
Never discussed or researched anywhere: how often a husband finds new job, the couple moves for that job, and the wife takes the first available job without negotiating. That has to be some of that last 4-8%
Yes. That probably is part of that 4-8%. I can't tell if you are arguing against the existence of the pay gap or not but the fact that this is a common thing to happen that the male gets the important job and the female gets whatever is available is something that would be interesting to look into
Kind of. It’s also average age. On average whites are much older than other racial groups. The average ages are as followed(rounded): Latinos:28, African Americans: 33, Native Americans: 34, Asians: 36, whites: 43. As someone ages they tend to make more money
? That's a personal family thing.
@@ericmans215 And? Homie, I was 100% down with being with my exes who had potential 6 figure salaries, why is it a bad thing that the girls want to take it easy? Sounds like a positive.
@@IskandarTheWack I don't think it is nessasarily a negative. I think it just might contribute to the gap. It would be interesting to look into more deeply
When we control for work experience and education, the gap is only about
5 percent. And when we account for the fact that men are more likely to
be injured or suffer an accident on the job, and do riskier work and
often more unpleasant jobs than women, the gap virtually disappears.
Furthermore, the latest surveys of college graduates find virtually no
pay discrepancy between men and women, so for this generation the
77-cents mantra is outdated.
They don't listen to reason...
The pay gap increases after college, when men and women go into serious long term careers.
***** But that goes against the idea that companies don't hire young females in fear of pregnancy.
+Dave it goes further than that even: Men are more likely to move for jobs, work nights, start businesses, etc.
+Dave Not just outdated. It was never a true representation of how men and women are rewarded for work
Wow, as a conservative, you've opened my eyes. I plan on talking about the explained pay gap vs the unexplained pay gap whenever I get the chance.
@@elevate7985 How tolerant of you.
*gets marshmallows for flame war*
Oh, holy crap, this is actually good.
+AgentOracle disagreeing with your assumptions != a flame war. If you can't deal with people freely expressing opinions that might run counter to yours, the internet may not be the best place for you.
+mwells219 I have two critiques of this. One. Assumptions. The opinions expressed in this video are based in statistical fact. They are not simply blind assumptions. Secondly, AgentOracle was not saying that people could not express their opinions. They were simply saying that the rage and sorrow expressed in RUclips comments are a great way to roast marshmallows. Which I happen to agree with.
Except that the only emprical data that he used in his argument is that the "pay gap" is actually not as large as any feminist claims it is and then just said that the remaining small gap exists because of sexism without providing any proof to support this argument.
+mwells219 +mwells219 I'm not sure if you watched the video or not. He clearly uses graphs multiple times and quotes statistics to back up and explain those graphs. As for the 4-8% pay gap he clearly says "most nonpartisan analyses agree that it is due to discrimination." John does back up his claims, even if he doesn't show us ever article that he has read.
Here in South Africa, men (grandpas) start getting pension at 65, and women at 60. The argument is that men are still strong at that age and could continue working. Lol
Based af
@Dean Turner Fr feminazis dont give af about men's issues
that is called patriarchy. patriarchy was made by MEN lol
yeah, same in poland...
@@nourkhalid7116 of course it had to be the patriarchy
Thanks for doing this, John. We need more videos about the pay gap that actually acknowledge its existence.
What you're describing as "evolution's fault," people who understand basic things call "inherent sexism."
Everything after that is gobbledygook.
+giga1452 It would be nice if women "being more assertive" would automatically give them equal ability to achieve higher positions in the work force. But the truth is that our society does have preconceived gender roles. That means that women are expected to act and behave a certain way, just as men are. Unfortunately, women who try to break these barriers ARE often seen as bitchy or ruthless or coldhearted, the opposite of what women are expected to be. This isn't always the case, of course, but the expectation of women to be more submissive is what makes it difficult for them to reasonably fight for higher positions. To write off such stereotypes as a myth is to disregard a major social factor in an incredibly complicated issue.
+giga1452 There definitely are biological factors, but if we as a society can recognize that, we can work to surpass those factors. I mean, there are a pleanty of biological and instinctual behaviours that people don't act on because it's wrong to do in our society. Also some perceptions/behaviours are shaped by the culture we live in. Men are more assertive in part because that is the cultural expectation. If we can change our expectations, then we can begin to encourage both men and women to assert themselves.
+JJ Yu Please... Here where women can divorce, take the kids, take the house, and rob far more than their fair share from men? Sorry that men also happen to be much more likely to DIE on the job, (as they generally work much more dangerous jobs,) and are more likely to pursue high paying careers.
If it was true that an employer could pay minorities and women less than men, then why would he not only hire them?!
These things are complicated and there are many MANY factors in play... I know that his message is going to be appealing to the majority of his demographic audience, but it is not based in reality and panders to things that are beyond our justly coming to a definite conclusion of.
i2.wp.com/www.avoiceformen.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/09/infographic-.wagegap.png?resize=816%2C1056
+giga1452 how can you not see the connection between assertiveness, perceived strength and patriarchy? your points could make great arguments in the opposite direction.
Quick fix: sue your boss for disobeying the Equal Pay Act. Yup. It's illegal to discriminate pay based on gender.
striker113
But it is true, and you can do that. Easily. It's just that not everyone knows about it.
that wouldn't work lol
some one NAME VALENCIA
And you know this how?
cause if I had the same job as u then yes but if you were know as junior or assistance (blank) then it's not even discriminating xD also if you listen he explained why because girls with kids takes more days off / or work for no money
some one NAME VALENCIA
I know full well. I said nothing that even slightly conflicts with that. That's why it's better called the "earnings gap". I was only saying that if for some reason your boss was paying you less for the same amount of work, that's illegal.
Everyone in the comments seem like they are misunderstanding the whole paid gap. Of course if men work more hours than women they'll get paid more. This is about if they work the same hours in the same job women still get paid less. That's the problem.
+N Jones It would be a problem if it was actually happening.
It is happening. The paid gap is a real thing.
Yes but it's not due to discrimination, it's because of different career choices men and women tend to make.
+Jenkins I never said it was discrimination. I just said that it was real.
+Jenkins except were talking about pay in the same job. Like op said already. Which this video talks about.
This is the only pay gap video that has actually taught me something. Thank you!
The pay gap groups part-time and full time work together when you just compare full time work the pay gap disappears
you mean the only one you want to believe lol, this guys in the video is a dummy, economists know far more than him about this subject lol
I would recommend looking into Sir Sic’s commentary on this. He does very well at discrediting his claim. Boiling down to choice, women having babies, and natural programming. Such as maternal instincts and how those pertain to their choices, and how males tend to do the more unfavorable jobs such as plumbing, going into waste pits, working for moving companies (lifting heavy furniture), or among others who now have a responsibility to provide for their families.
@@adrianh.3102 women having babies isn’t usually a choice. Most pregnancies aren’t planned, and we can’t get abortions in a lot of places
@@miad6160: You could turn to a orphanage, and I do agree many don’t plan to have children. Many being young careless women who seek thrills or experiences adults have. As cruel as it may sound, that was their decision to make, that is their consequence.
A friend of mine was placed with a similar dilemma. A ex wishing to return to him after getting herself pregnant by another man. The man left her, which I had my own vices about. However, she then decided to try to get back with the man she left (my friend), hoping to share the trouble with raising a child with him. My friend said no, that he spent a year trying to get over her and now she comes pregnant from another man, hoping to return to how it was after little to no communication? It is sad, but it was a choice she made, and she placed her faith in the wrong person. Both of them are nineteen mind you.
I have even been to middle schools where it was common to see a used condom in a water fountain. Or where students participate in sexual acts in the cafeteria, or in hidden places around the school. Again, that is the fault of them making those choices. Many have ruined their lives only because they put their hopes in the wrong person, through no fault of the child growing within them. Unfortunately the sex culture won’t be going away anytime soon, until we are able to change our mindset, we can only inform people of the consequences for the actions they take. I also have come to know several who regret making the decision to have the abortion, depending on the stage their pregnancy is in.
Personally I don’t wish to see it again.
Edit: But to say MOST pregnancies are not planned, is a bit exaggerated. Many know the chances and how to prevent it, and think “oh it won’t happen to me” or “It is a safe day”. People tend to gamble with odds saying “It is mostly in my favor”. Sure they may not be planned but it is far from unexpected given prior warning from peers, friends, and family alike. At least from my point of view and experience.
Being “You refuse to listen until it is too late or ends up being you in that chance happening to you”.
That 4 to 8% of difference can not be just stamped as due to gender discrimination.
Who is the they?
Why not? If you are a statistician or someone in a relevant field I would love to hear your take on the subject.
Ryan Bananahands because it's an assumption that implies automatic guilt of sexism.
It is the outlier. Logically concludes when every study comes back with a pay gap within that range that it somehow doesn't exist please 😂
SJkid39 Why is it the pay gap side has studies and all the other side thinks they have to do is debunk those studies. That's not how logic works. No that's not what they are doing either.
I would point you to The Factual Feminist (Christina Hoff Summers) who's life's work has been in this field, you will find that she explains exactly why there is an *EARNING* (not wage) disparity, and it isn't discrimination.
She is one of the few feminists whom I would give my respect.
+Phil Thomas she's not a feminist
What does it mean to be a feminist?
sgad fly She is the only *actual* feminist I have ever seen online, all these other fake-fems don't deserve to use the title.
She considers herself a Feminist and unless there's a leadership structure all of a sudden then she's a Feminist.
Please define what a Feminist is, and what she does that disqualifies her for the title.
How can someone so smart be so bias and wrong
+BeFaLcon 94 Obviously not as smart as he thinks he is
+BeFaLcon 94 bias has nothing to do with intelligence. it has to do with the fact that anyone can be mistaken. einstein refused to believe quantum mechanics existed and is often quote-mined as having said "god does not play dice with the universe" as part of his dismissal of quantum.
quantum mechanics are regularly used in labs everywhere on earth today. was einstein dumb? no, he just had blind spots, like everyone else.
+BeFaLcon 94
He gave Sources in the Dooblily Doo. Lurn2Read
Also my point was bias not that he was wrong. yes the information is there. does not mean its accurate or that he has presented it correctly
*****
1: expecting a thinking feeling human being to be 100% unbiased is unrealistic.
2: If you have a problem with this sources, please be specific.
Its just so great to see that some people actually are willing to talk the tough talks even when they don't have to.
Thanks @vlogbrothers for that and thanks nerdfighteria for being just open to change and being awesome
YESSSSSSSS Thank you so much for this video. Now go play with Alice and Henry
+Ellenore Holbrook Thank you for giving me the encouragement and reminder I needed. I'm logging off comments now to do take care of the kids. Thanks for watching the video! -John
+vlogbrothers Thanks for everything you're doing John! DFTBA
+vlogbrothers I dont want to sound like an ass but can it be said that men are far more likely to be promoted to higher positions of work because they generally exude better leadership skills.
I would like to see some statistical backing to the claim that men are better leaders than women because that's a hilarious claim
+Ellenore Holbrook Statistics is not always the answer; it can sometimes be misleading.
Sally can do 40 push ups. Bob can do 50 push ups. They are paid based on how many push ups each one can do. Who should be paid more?
+Ineta Life
Sally because MALE PRIVILEGE of course. You know how this works.
+Rozmic Tumblr in a nutshell
+Ineta Life Well this is a rigged question. Few people get paid via a per product method (At least if your not self employed), however, yes the worker who provided the fewest numbers in terms of products would receive the lowest pay.More or less what your doing is constructing a scenario to use as a example in which the only logical step is to admit that Bob should make more then Sally. Therefore everybody else's opinion on the subject is automatically wrong.This is real life however where things aren't perfect. Worker skill, career goals, ability to work overtime, etc... all work into how much somebody is willing to work and their efficiency at getting said work done. You example uses a example of physical work, which I will admit on the average most women cannot lift as much as men. If we look at most jobs these days however they are not very dependent on physical strength. A worker of either gender can work harder than the rest at McDonalds, Walmart, in accounting, customer service, running a business, etc.Basically what I'm trying to say is that your example is worthless for actually talking about wage discrimination. It's more of a tool for making yourself feel good.
Did you watch the video?
Gabriel Schulze
Tumblr is merely an outlet. Schools, universities, entertainment and MSM are where it starts.
If I had a dollar for every sexist comment on this video, I would have 77 cents for almost every comment on this video.
+Rhea Varma
If I had a dollar for every sexist comment on this video, I would have 77 cents for almost every comment on this video.
+Rhea Varma BRILL
+Rhea Varma brilliant move.
Thank you , thank you very much *bows*
that's a funny joke ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Can't believe someone as intelligent and articulate as you would fall for this propaganda.
I am confused as to how someone can see a video like that and respond in such a way as you just did. I would like to know why you think the gender pay gap is propaganda, and who is propagating it and to what end?
Usually people conclude there is a gender pay gap, but the reason for that gap is always sexism, they never look at the different working habits of men v. women, i.e. how much time they take off work, do they volunteer to work overtime/weekends, DO THEY GIVE BIRTH TO CHILDREN? The average dad will take off much less time from work than a mother would, that alone can affect your career.
Women are different than men! That isn't debatable! They have an entirely different damn chromosome! They have different levels of hormones and brain development!
I'm not dismissing that fact, I'm saying that it is dangerous to dismiss the whole issue as women being different than men. Did you read what I said?
Evil Duck Sure they’re different. But I’ll ask, completely rhetorically (meaning I don’t really care), does that mean to you that they are less deserving of equal pay or the same rights you have? Not trying to take a side, just raising a question
So you know the whole "God in the gaps" phenomenon? People used to think the gods lived on the top of mountains, like Mt. Olympus, until people climbed those mountains and didn't find Zeus. OK then maybe God lives in the clouds, until we figured out how clouds actually worked. Well then maybe God is in the stars? Then we found out what space is like and now God has to live somewhere else. So now in 2016 we aren't sure what happened before the big bang and we haven't gotten a good grasp of quantum mechanics yet, so maybe that's where God lives.
This entire video was basically "Sexism in the gaps". We start out with the whole 77 cents on the dollar and everyone shouting about how that $0.23 is all sexism. And then we correct for hours worked and the pay gap shrinks to 16 cents, which are now by the way totally sexism you guys... this time for real seriously, patriarchy! And then we correct for education, job experience, and career choice then the pay gap shrinks to 4 cents. And then NOW you guys ... this time, it's sexism OK.
could it not be possible (and very probable based on the way this argument has been going for decades) that if we were to take a closer look at that 4% we'd find more totally not sexist reasons that men and women are paid differently. Maybe men and women negotiate for raises in different ways, maybe men and women enjoy different types of jobs.
Or maybe it's disingenuous to claim that any wage gap that cannot be explained must therefore be explained as sexism.
+Some Rando Perfect
+Some Rando Very well put
I suggest you read some of the arguments in other threads under this video. There are so many reasons why your statement is almost certainly false, which I'd love to get into if I didn't have to leave in a minute (hence why I'm telling you to thoroughly search through these threads and hopefully you'll find the explanations that I'm referring to.)
you could check the dooblidoo and see all the sources for yourself. then at least you would know why John said what he said. maybe somewhere in the sources the factors you mentioned are already mentioned and that 4% is still left! who knows man?
+Some Rando I would love to have a theological discussion with you, but this is the youtube comments... Need I say more???
The 4-8% is not "unexplained" its just that its impossible to objectively value work and its an employers job to keep wages low. If men ask for pay raises more than women then that will effect the statistics but it is not discrimination.
Personally I suggest that wages are transparent so that everyone can know what their immediate colleague is earning so they can have the justification for asking for a raise.
Another thing to consider is that corporations and businesses have employee perks which may be more favourable to female employees such as childcare vouchers.
+RFE Very interesting take on it. I'm glad I scrolled down.
agreed, interesting idea
+RFE Interesting points. However your last one does bother me slightly. Childcare vouchers aren't more favourable to women because both men and women should be taking care of children and not just exclusively women. So both benefit from them
Michelle Murphy LBH the vouchers are aimed at single mothers, not fathers.
+RFE Woman compared to men are horrible negotiators which is a factor in starting salary.
hbr.org/2014/06/why-women-dont-negotiate-their-job-offers/
So the gap widens right around a woman's child bearing years. Makes sense.
TheMetadaemon because employers have to compensate for the risk of expensive paid maternity leave.
Not necessarily. More common is women simply working fewer hours, e.g. leaving work at 3:00 to pick up the kids from school.
Respectfully, it would make sense if your country had a recquired maternity leave, like every developed country. But it doesn't.
Maternity leave is a complete waste of company money, especially if it is a white collared job. I say this as a female who, personally, would love maternity leave. But rationally as a human, I think that it's a waste and shouldn't be mandatory.
BlancheNeigefan this fantasy, that you can just take a country like Norway and over lay their policies onto the US is amazing. The US is wholly unlike Western Europe. you want to see a more accurate reflection of why that doesn't work? wait 30 years and continue the massive flood of unchecked immigration with families that will take generations to assimilate and integrate. Germany, the UK, sweeden, they can all afford these generous programs because they have a more wealthy and better educated populace to tax.
I like how no one has yet to mention pregnancy
Parental/bonding leave is covered for moms and dads were I live, idk what prehistoric village you live in
Yeah but there is also the cost of training for an organization as well as the cost of a job becoming unfilled and the lost productivity from it as well as the cost of the new replacement not being at peak efficiency yet due to being new to the game.
iulia
Jesus. That’s nuts
@@hufflebuffben welcome to America
@@drnanard9605 welcome to America where woman have the most success and freedom in the known world.
Wow, I never seen someone one work so hard to fake being unbiased. Your language did not start out neutral and build to a conclusion. It was accusatory through out.
The kicker for me is when you say "most of the gap is explained by discrimination", but by your own admission the gap shrinks from 21% to 8% due to differences in experience, education, and career choice.
+bullpcp I gave him the benefit of the doubt.
I personally think the last 4% to 8% is due mostly to risk preference.
+bullpcp Just to be clear, I would not be super shocked if the last 4 to 8% had some discrimination in it. But they make no suggestion as to how to ferret it out. Like suppose a man demands a raise after good project, but his female employee is too nice or timid to demand it. Is that discrimination? Or suppose a man is more willing to travel or work at field office away from his family, but the woman does not want to leave town. As such the man has more opportunities to impress more people. Is that discrimination?
Or suppose that a sexist boss slips in a $1 raise to a male employee. How are you going to identify this sexist boss from a boss of female employee who overestimates her value? All the signals of quality will be the same for an outside job.
To me, this gender wage gap feels like whining. No one except radical feminists are offering solutions, and usually these take the form of gender based taxes, subsidies, and hiring quotas. I don't want a tax on me just because I have a dick.
+TC Coltharp I think women being too timid to ask for raises might be a product of societally enforced gender roles. So while it may not be directly due to gender discrimination by the employer ("I'll pay a woman less"), that still makes the gap a product of discrimination. Just a more subtle form of it.
+mickeynotmouse Do you have a solution or are you just whining about reality?
TC Coltharp Well being aware of these societally enforced roles goes a long way in changing my personal behavior so that I'm not part of the problem. In the same way, if awareness of the issue continues to spread, most people will also change to a more progressive behavior, and slowly but surely, these roles will become a thing of the past, and the wage gap could close as a consequence.
In other words, change is about our attitude and the language we use. And in this case, I think a situation where the majority begins to encourage career competitiveness and assertive traits that lead to better wages (in women as well as men), is perfectly plausible
For every dollar a man gets, a women gets 77 cents? That's not fair! That only leaves the man with 23 cents! :D
+Homini Lupus
Welcome to the world of DIVORCE SETTLEMENTS!
+Homini Lupus hahhaha this is very funny
+Chordstruck Pony This. This a hundred times.
+Homini Lupus took me a second. i laughed harder than i should have.
+Homini Lupus lol
Thank you for actually addressing everything that is standardly discussed as complaints during the discussion of the wage gap. The people who ignore the complexity make solving the gender wage gap more difficult because it invites backlash. John, you always help make us smarter and hopefully we are able to use this information to truly transform the world into a more fair place.
+PrimevalDragon That's very kind. Thanks! -John
+vlogbrothers John you are reading the comments, i would suggest you skip them for this video otherwise you'll go crazy. Go have a Dr. Pepper or something... DFTBA
Hell yeah! Women power! :) I am a female engineer. Am the only female in my team and in every previous company men were majority in this field. I will no longer accept a salary below those of my male colleagues.
+hailtz You shouldn't have anyway. There's literally laws against that so you could have taken them to court
idiot
I work as an Engineer with long experience, and although I train all my male colleagues when they first start, I know for a fact that they make either equal or more than I do. I thought about this a lot and why it's happening and I figured the fact that my need to be with my children scares me from fighting for more money thinking that it may be associated with more work and commitment than I already put in. In addition, Engineering is a profession that requires continuous testing in order to be licensed, unfortunately I am unable to dedicate more time to anything but my kids, that's the inner guilt that stops me from wasting any more time on anything but them since I'm already spending almost 60%of my day in engineering!. So basically, I think based on my experience, I'm accepting that I'm being underpaid because I know that my choice will always be being the best mom vs being the best worker. The fact that I put the majority of my effort in my home and kids leads me to think I may not deserve to be paid the same amount to what a person who's 100% dedicated to work. I don't know if this makes sense to anyone but I feel like all the above makes me grateful for anything and that is not a bad thing, it's really a choice. That's how I think as a woman, now in order for this whole thing to be fair, I think another more careful scale should be created to test and set the wages based on knowledge and impact and should be developed as an individual progress in a position.
Your comment should get an award of its own.... I am changing careers for a lower starting salary because my previous career wont let me and my wife work in the same location if we each focus on our career. So i take a pay cut and start again. Its a multi dimensional issue. Also women are necessary for some part of child care that is irreplaceable. And in a competitive field like engineering you cant push the same hour continous with other priorities. I am doing my masters in another field and sometime i get to here stuff like"At now your are back, I have done it for these many months now you handle the kid". Its not like i dont want to, i am studying after 13 years of working with students 10 years younger while thinking about them. All that effort is overlooked, because men are supposed to be less caring and emotion less. Since we cant get credit we do what we are expected to do, show care by earning more more money at expense of spending time with family, inch for higher raises. Tell me if this is the case why shouldnt there be a pay gap? I expect it to be even higher.
PS:- All countries have a gender descrimination law in constitution. If it could be verified its discriminatory it would be sued. Like in my country for govt job the salary is fixed and like inscribed on a stone fixed for everyone to see... most regulated places have that....
This is not the emotion-based, illogical response we see from most women.
@Danny Archer Yet yours is the elitist-based, illogical type of comment we see from most sexists.
@@allbirdsarecatsThe problem is women are not working equal amount of hours, nor are they as reliable when it comes to working unscheduled shifts or overtime nor are they as willing to move. They call off more and take more vacation time. They are far more likely to take leave during pregnancy and paternal leave after delivering the baby, to care for the baby at home for a few weeks or months. They are not as likely to remain with the company. They are less likely ask for a raise. Please explain to me how you could fill these gaps AND pay the women equally, even pay for all the extra time off!
You've really nailed it on the head here. On the flipside, a lot of young fathers face the pressure to be better providers and will instead work MORE hours in the office or on the job, so that they can provide better for their wives and children. So both men and women face different pressures that lead to men taking on more paid work and women taking on less paid work.
I do think women have more freedom in this though. Yes there's pressure to be a supermom, but ultimately you can make the choice to work more hours at work and spend less time with your kids. You do have that choice and it's unlikely to affect your romantic relationships and anybody who criticizes you for not being "supermom" is rightly criticized for being a misogynist. So you have a real choice in front of you. Most men do not have this choice. Not legitimately anyway. They can either be a provider or a provider. Men who sacrifice money and time at work are viewed as less ambitious and are thus less desirable to women. And this is reinforced even by feminist women who still put a lot of emphasis on a man's financial status when choosing a guy. A lot of women seem to think a man should make as much as them or more. Which is weird, because entering the workforce should have freed up women to focus on other traits when choosing a mate, but instead it seems to have made women even more selective, viewing with less financial status than them as "below them", and not worth considering as a future mate.
"8% unexplained gap; therefore sexism"
It's the feminist of the gaps.
Women get paid less because they do housework? I used to think you were smart... Its a choice women make, believe it or not, to spend more time at home then at work fully knowing that they won't get paid for it. Women choose to stay home with their kids because they want to and understand it'll be more beneficial to both her and her child that she takes care of them instead of putting them in daycare.
There is a gender earnings gap, yes, but the wage gap is a complete myth and if there was, why would any smart business man ever hire a man again? They would save a lot of money by simply hiring women...
The way he is putting it makes it look like they should get paid more simply for going home early to do housework instead of staying at work.
There is no wage gap, an earnings gap, yes but no wage gap.
As an economist, I can confirm everything that Katelynn has said here. Good on you, for doing real research and critical thinking.
Jesus Christ Where is the evidence of this? Claiming it doesn't make it so. If women get paid less because the CHOOSE to leave work earlier than men, then that's their own fault. Tell them to start crying after they make up around 90% of work related deaths.
Jesus Christ Do tell, where is your degree in Economics? That's right, you have none. It's a shame your mother didn't swallow.
Jesus Christ I'm sure it did.
Interesting no mention that men also get injured on the job more, laid off more, and have been over taken by women in enrollment and graduation from colleges.
Also, the salary negotiation issue isn't mentioned either.
its almost like he skipped over all of that because it didn't fit the agenda. hmm.
+MrSoupdog and yet "unpaid work hours" is relevent?
+DownloadDeX Listen, this guy makes most of his living off the internet. The Twitter-twats could ruin this guy completely. Hes got kids to feed. Don't expect him to rock the boat. It's not fair to him.
***** I mean unpaid house work isn't on topic either. And the salary negotiation issue is VERY much on topic.
FortuitusVideo I am perfectly willing to discuss this with people. I personally do believe there is gender discrimination in the workplace. But I also believe we need to adequately identify the real issues from the imaginary ones.
My ex convinced me it was a lie by saying women don't want to do some of the skilled and dangerous jobs. Especially ones which are both. But he didn't mention that women are excluded from those workforces by sexism inherent in those professions.
Ageism also deserves a dishonorable mention.
I know right? People in their 50s are more likely to stay until they retire, more likely to have more experience, less likely to go on maternity/paternity leave... why don't people want to employ them?
Except women do work those jobs but at largely reduced rates. It's not sexism, it's shit applicants.
@@conlon4332 Because with age comes higher health risks, read the damned policies for a change.
@@IgnoreMeImWrong Hi Jenna. You recently pissed me off on one of my comments. While replying I realized that my original comment was mistakenly posted on John Green's video and not on the RUclips Short it was meant to go on (I had two windows open). This youtube short was a guy asking a girl what the gender pay gap was and she fumbled her way through a bad explanation. I hated the video because it painted this girl in a bad light and implied the gender pay gap wasnt real without giving any sort of fact whether it was or not. I came to John's video because ive watched it before and knew it was informative and I wanted a reminder. I deleted my comment as it literally made NO SENSE as a comment to John's video. I blew up at your comment thinking it was a poking of fun at my critique of a mysogynitic and misleading YT short. I now see that is not the case and that you did not deserve the replies that followed. So I apologize. I still dont like you though. Correcting you're/your on the internet is cringe and has been since Myspace.
@@BluesJayPrince I didn't correct it, you did. I merely pointed out the amusing irony of it.
Though, I'm so glad that someone who knows nothing about me finds me on another video just to tell me they don't like me. 💋
Men who have children are known to be more stable employment because of the financial burden.
Boy, these subjects sure bring out all of the "experts" in the comments
George12String
If this conversation was limited to professional economists, then there would be no conversation at all. You could always just... you know... actually address these "experts"' arguments rather than condescendingly dismissing them.
Im a hugh mungus expert and i pay womenz less cos they smell. By no means is vlog brothers an expert on this issue so you get the audience you deserve. and yeah actually address the arguments rather than dismissing them in a condescending comment.
The problem is the question is fundamentally an economic question that SHOULD be generally limited to experts. The problem is this issue is politicized when its really a quantitative question with a yes/no answer --- but most people (left and right alike) seem to think there is much more to it than that.
I don't have the answers, but my point is many people seem to think they do.
It is politicized I agree but I disagree that it should be left to 'experts'. An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.
Well, that's the old joke and there is an element of truth to it.
However, keep in mind that by stating experts, I really mean people who have analyzed data explicitly relevant to discussing the age gap. I think the problem is that this is a question that can be answered purely with facts, but (like in all too many instances) people simply substitute their world view (on both sides).
Anyone can, of course, have an opinion. But it should be grounded in reality --- but that is not what I see here in the comments section.
But a school teacher makes like $70,000+ a year!
Oh wait! I live in Canada!
Nevermind
Greg Wiens Haha. Canada is great. I wonder why there aren't more Canadians ridiculing the US. Maybe you're too nice.
Paul, there are tons of canadians who ridicule the US. At least that's the impression I get from the canadians I've met and get exposed to online lol. But honestly I think they're the same as everyone else and the "nice canadian" thing is just a vastly exaggerated stereotype.
I'm a Yank in Canada. Interestingly the Left in Canada ridicule the US, and my friends on the right admire the US.
I'm somewhere between the two.
Standard of living in higher for the average Canadian though. You pay more taxes but you don't pay for private insurance. I've lived in both countries and I have a little more disposable income at the end of the day in Canada.
The only advantage that the US has is travel is much cheaper - airport fees and charges in Canada are terrible. Often drive across the boarder if I want to travel.
Both are good places to live, for me Canada has been a bit better.
Interestingly I am right wing in Canada, but left wing in the US.
Go figure.
I live in the Prairies of Canada, Central SK. The average salary here is $70 k and I find at the end of the day I have more money to spend on extras than in the US if I buy health insurance.
**here in 2018 looking at comments** hey john, did you enjoy the flame war
Spoopy UnamusedDeathGod 2020
You can't commit a basic logic fallacy, mislead your viewers, and expect not to receive criticism. John commits the argument from ignorance when he states the unexplained gap is sexism.
@@jhonklan3794 No he doesn't. That isn't an argument from ignorance. The fact that it exists regardless of of causation is by definition sexism.
@@CoryMck He literally states that we cannot explain this 4% gap, therefore its sexism. That is in a literal sense an argument from ignorance. He provides nothing to support that statement. I could easily postulate that that gap is explained by previous work experience. Secondly, that statement is not even true. When you control for agreeableness you find that the gap diminishes to zero. The issue here is John controlled for 5 factors and assumed it was enough when there are way more factors that could influence income
Generally, you can never conclude anything from ignorance. If something is unexplained, by definition you cannot explain it. He states the gap is unexplained, yet goes on to explain it which is a textbook argument from ignorance fallacy. Its like stating, we don't know what caused this house to be destroyed therefore it must be a tornado. Logically, if you don't know something you must stop there, you cannot conclude anything from ignorance.
@@jhonklan3794 Did you not hear me before?
THE FACT THAT THE GAP EXISTS IS SEXIST IN AND OF ITSELF.
The gap is not explained by previous work experience. tens of thousands of researchers in economics, sociology, public planning & policy, human resources management have studied it, you don't have to postulate shit, just use your ears.
When you control for everything there is still an unexplained wage gap. Trust me, you didn't solve the problem.
"yet goes on to explain it which is a textbook argument from ignorance fallacy"
It factually isn't. You're either blatantly lying or weren't listening.
*"most nonpartisan analysis agree that this part of the wage gap is directly due to gender discrimination. By the way, you can find links and lots of sources in the doobly-doo".*
That's not an argument from ignorance, it's scientific data that you simply refuse to acknowledge.
" *_We know that is due to discrimination_*" Oh sweet, Mr. Green is going to offer evidence of this now right?? Oh wait no he isn't, hes just going to assert it. *_Correlation = Causation_*, so sayeth Mr. Green.
Sexism of the gaps. Not a surprise coming from someone religious, I guess. They do love their god of the gaps arguments.
+Hokibukisa looking for someone who made this point and you are right. Just because you can't explain somehting doesn't make it discrimination god or whatever other talking point. You have to prove it.
Nice
You're right, but without further evidence its difficult to say that it isn't due to discrimination either. At this moment, we just don't know, and that's that.
+Hokibukisa The exact quote is, “Most non-partisan analyses agree that this part of the pay gap is directly due to gender discrimination. By the way, you can find links to lots of sources in the doobley-doo.” John never said he was an expert, nor did he make solid, unequivocal claims like you suggest. He is just reporting his research on the findings of social scientists who have studied this topic.
+Hokibukisa you can't know either way. but you most often hear guys making sexual comments about their coworkers and not vice versa. just a thought.
if 4-8% is unexplained, there are literally hundreds of factors which could explain why (women's holidays, men's unique propensity to negotiate wages (which alone can explain 5% of the gap), maternity leave, to name a few) and yet you resort to discrimination without question - bias at its finest.
The exact quote is, “Most non-partisan analyses agree that this part of the pay gap is directly due to gender discrimination"
Men are not biologically programmed to negotiate more. It’s a byproduct of a historically sexist society
@@kaiwistoski9858 i dont rlly think so
anyone for popcorn?
+Field Marshal Fry yes please i ran out during the fine brothers fiasco
+Field Marshal Fry Yes please! *holds out popcorn bucket*
+ashley beaumont , field Marshall fry.
may I have butter with that?
+ashley beaumont
What did I miss? I don't watch fine brothers / use twitter / ...
The Glassdoor study specifically says the 4-8% is most likely not due to gender discrimination.
Can You Give me the link to that study please?
Negotiation
@@ivangomez962 www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.glassdoor.com/research/app/uploads/sites/2/2019/03/Gender-Pay-Gap-2019-Research-Report-1.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwil6d-k7u3rAhVCVK0KHS2CDX4QFjACegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw1Ygk22CoBCI_YYTvEYj07Z&cshid=1600265716912
The notion of "unpaid work" is complete nonsense.
First, let's be clear about how much work is actually being done. Here's some relevant data:
www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/14/men-women-work-time/1983271/
So we see that mothers tend to do 17.8 hours of housework, while fathers tend to do 9.8 -- this study however does not count time spent doing yardwork or home repairs, traditionally male chores, but we'll ignore that for now.
Neither partner is being paid for this labor, which means that we can discount the time spent by the father from the mother, leaving a net deficit of 8 hours per week. We're also going to ignore that single women do more housework than single men (by about 4 hours), while married men do more housework than single men, which indicates that women have a higher standard of cleaning and thus almost half of the deficit in housework is entirely a result of keeping the house clean to her standard rather than a standard between his and hers. Though it's worth noting that when you combine this factor with the previous factor we've ignore, the deficit in housework essentially vanishes. But whatever, let's just keep pretending that it's really true and meaningful that women do 8 hours of unpaid work every week that is SOLELY for the benefit of a man, and not at all about their own personal standards.
So 8 hours a week, 52 weeks in a year, adds up to 416 hours of unpaid work. A housecleaner charges on average $25/hour. This means the unpaid work done by the average woman is equivalent to about $10,400/year.
The average family is a two-income family earning a combined $79,100/year. On average the wife earns 40% of this total while the man earns 60% of this total. This means the wife is bringing in $31,640 versus the husband's $47,460. This means that the husband is contributing $15,820 more to the combined wealth of the family than the wife. If we add in the entire $10,400 (which, again, is essentially paying her for having a higher standard than him) we find the family is essentially earning $89,500, of which the wife is contributing $42,040 versus the husband's $47,460.
The result is a -$5,420 deficit to the wife. What this means is that the average woman would need to do AT LEAST 5 more hours of housework PER WEEK over and above what she already does in order to even begin to complain about "unpaid work," as the average American woman is clearly a freeloader letting her male partner do more work to support her than she does to support him.
Oh, and here's one more point: With the median marriage lasting 45 years, and using the same kind of spurious math you use to make claims like the one you make at 1:48 (that women lose over $240 million/year to discrimination), we find that the average man loses $243,900 over the course of his marriage due to his wife's freeloading.
With roughly 60 million married couples in America, and still using the kind of spurious logic you're using, I can apparently make the claim that marriage costs men $14,634,000,000,000. That's right, marriage costs men FOURTEEN TRILLION dollars. That's the tax men pay for women's laziness.
Add to that $14 trillion the $22 trillion in wealth that is transferred from men to women due to men's shorter lifespans, and suddenly I can make a ridiculous claim like "Over the course of their lifetimes, men of my generation will transfer $36 trillion dollars to women in exchange for nothing at all."
+Wolf of the West women do the majority of the work when they become mothers. men don't bother to change diapers lol From your analysis I am also getting men need to learn how to clean, because usually women have to do what men did AGAIN just so that it is actually clean. Up your performance :P
*****
you made a sweeping statement, and i responded with one. maybe you were lucky actually to grow up in a balanced family but unfortunately i don't see much of this rubbing off on you since so you easily put down women for what they contribute
*****
no i don't take it this way. i don't psychiatric issues but thank you for pointing that out. i am sure this attitude serves you well in life, accusing people of psychiatric issues..
just because your uncle changed diapers doesn't mean this applies to everyone. i was using a stereotype (obviously), and there are exclusions like your uncle (obviously). Still, these are stereotypes for a reason. because your uncle will be congratulated for pitching in, which his wife's contribution is taken for granted even if i am sure she did more of that work. (don;t know for sure, maybe another outlier but this is the stereotype). all of this... has to be obvious.. and shouting CITATION NEEEDEDDDD is totally useless.
and i am not your honey. you got much to do to be entitled to call me this.
*****
you need anger management. other than that, you are pretty reasonable. i agree stereotypes can be bullshit but if you have to address every.single.one.person i am going to have to write a thesis! and youtube ocmments is certainly not the place. now chill out and stop calling people names.
It's not a wage gap, it's an earnings gap
The difference being?
Wages being the hourly salary, for example earning $10 an hour, thats their wage. But earning is how much they earn overall, accounting for hours worked, profession, overtimem Its their income
a fixed regular payment earned for work or services, typically paid on a daily or weekly basis.
"we were struggling to get better wages"
synonyms: pay, payment, remuneration, salary, emolument, stipend, fee, allowance, honorarium; More
It seems it can also refer to salary or pay as a whole, thats the way i always understood it.
At my previous jobs, the women were treated way better than I ever was as a male and we're always given the easier, more cushy job, and we're simply earning more than me because they were pretty despite us being equals.. Lets talk about all the men have died fighting in wars, or being killed in any of the jobs women simply wont do. Whens the last time you've been to a closed casket for a female in the military? Nobody talks about that. Ya sure okay 4-8% pay gap is down to a never ending argument, how about the death gap? Nobody thinks about that type of discrimination of men.
It's because women are natural whiners...
Latiman95 "there are probably thousands of women that die to protect the USA" - proof?
+Latiman95 i think it's pretty widely known that if you are a pretty woman that you will get treated easier. You'll get easier sentences if you commit a crime and be treated like a pwecious pwitty fwower
***** 11 million military personnel died in WWI, 400 is nothing if compared to that.
+Joe Bernard Jobs women won't do? The army was meant to descriminate women, it wasn't a personal choice by anyone. But when the U.S talked of letting women into the army, everyone was outraged because they "couldn't do the job". And during WW2, you might have remembered women just as well picking up the slack, taking place of the men back in the states to show support for our troops. The death gap is a product of belief women can't do the same. They "simply won't do" these jobs because they aren't allowed to.
AT one point my wife and I earned almost exactly the same PER HOUR. But she noticed that my take home pay was usually double what hers was. The reason? She worked 40 hours a week whereas I worked on average 65. And keep in mind that the extra 25 hours were overtime, paid at time and a half. Since the "pay gap" ONLY looks at average annual pay, that would show up that I earned almost double what she does and definitely contribute towards the unfair "pay gap" even though we earned the same per hour.
As far as "unpaid" labor, every time I see one of those lists as to which gender does the percentages of housework, it seems like they NEVER include things like yardwork and home repair. So aside from each week I work about 25 hours more paid hours at my job, on most weekends I usually do 3-5 hours of yardwork and about an equal amount of home maintenance and ONLY THEN, once I bring out the vacuum does my work around the house seem to count. I'm the one who brings the laundry hamper to the washer and since I just did that, I'll go ahead and get it started. Since wet laundry is heavy, I'll be the one who switches loads and then carry the clean laundry baskets back to the bedroom.
If most women are like my wife, they will do endless amounts of complaining that the man is the slob while they have to do all the housework and it makes them feel like they have to be the mother to an adult child. Meanwhile, I look around and see someone sitting on the couch playing Candy Crush while not only have I done an extra 25 hours of work this week in order to pay for another cruise so she can get away from her hectic schedule, but then also I'm the one who has done the majority of the work around the house while she sits there and claims that I would live in a pig stye if it wasn't for her. NO ma'am, I'm the one who did the work but you are so delusional that you believe that you did most of it.
Sorry ladies but if the roles were reversed and you were the ones who worked those extra hours, we' easily have ALL the housework done.
It's illegal to pay someone less because of race gender ethnicity etc
Yes. Yes it is. But it's not illegal to push entire demographics towards lower-paying jobs through an insidious cocktail of accepted biases and unconscious discrimination. Next time watch the whole video before you start waggling your fingers.
+saltypork101 Oh, the "Patriarchy" again?
saltypork101 Can you prove the existence of this "cancerous appendix"?
Earthling Carl Yes.
saltypork101 Ok, you're a troll, ta-ta.
I was hoping John would be too smart to support a large wage gap.
in what way do you mean that?
Doesn't he write chick-flicks? It might not be such a good idea kicking that aposematic cash cow.
+mlax141 Haha, chew on that feminists. Really though, too many people are too different for there to be equality. The sooner we understand that there will always be differences, the less likely our world will end up like a dystopian fiction novel.
+Emily Justice THANK you, it is agreed.
I don't agree with his form of discussion, but I didn't hear him say the wage gap was large. It can be as much as 15% against women, but most of the statistics show that only 4-8% of that is not quantifiable. The problem is when people take that 'not quantifiable' and say it's code term for sexism.
Even he said that the data shows a 4-8% gap that was not definable. There is sexism there, but it does not correlate heavily on the gap.
There is also the issue with using statistical analysis for a philosophical or political bias. The wage gap has become that. It's simply an earnings gap, bolstered by many factors. One of the smallest of those factors (15% gap, only 4-8% of that gap could be sexism and other factors) is any form of slant against women. This is the problem with data, it doesn't explain what it can't explain.
TL:DR There is no large wage gap, there is a visible earnings gap, John never said there was a 'large wage gap', and the causes of this gap are mostly figured out as far as the data that could be collected.
If he said those words, I apologize. I have been wrong before. Could you please point out where he said those words? Thank you.
Equal pay act of 1963
Equal pay act of 1963
Equal pay act of 1963
Equal pay act of 1963
Equal pay act of 1963
Doesnt Matter Because ignorant people think it doesn't even exist
I've gotta be honest, I'm glad you addressed the pay gap. You're one of the few people I can actually trust about it.
I still disagree with parts of this video, but thank you very much for your level of nuance and lack of pointing fingers in this video, John. I believe both sides of gender issue debates would be able to come together much more easily if they discussed them the way you do.
+Andrew „TheMunz“ Munzer No, this was not very nuanced at all.
+Andrew “TheMunz” Munzer This was horrible, you can tell by how he kept bringing up that woman work more on household chores.. as if that is a favor in how much an employer should pay someone. Woman are less likely to stay late at work, do dangerious jobs, do physially difficult jobs, miss a fucking piano recital.. whereas men do. We die 9-10 times more than woman because we take on higher pay higher risk jobs. Its not discrimination that woman don't work on oil rigs or coal mines.
+MGTOW FTW
I don't think the point is that women should be paid for chores and stuff, it's that men should take on more of that unpaid workload and thereby give women more time to do paid work.
John McLaughlin If a man is ok with laying in filth its his right not to clean his house, its a personal choice. Men don't care as much about a clean home as woman do.
Do woman need to work on cars as much as men? Kill spiders as much as men? Defend their homes from invaders as much as men?
No, they are personal choices.
***** Sorry, let me rephrase, every man I have ever met cares less about clean house than woman I have met. It's totally anecdotal. I know male dorm rooms are fucking disgusting, but again that isn't proof.. I'll look for a study though.
I would guess that men also take more risks and ask for a higher wage (sooner).
However, that is also just an assumption for the starting wage. Also, the one study showed that resumes from females got lower starting wages. That would be without negotiation.
+Drama_Llama_5000 Probably because of one of two things:1. women are more likely to accept low wages and not ask for more.2. people assume men are the financial providers of families, therefore they need more money for their wife and kids.
of course its an assumption but I didn't mean only the starting wages. you can ask for an increase later too.
(i meant this without any connection to the resumes.)
Women who ask for a raise are less likely to get one than a man. This may explain why fewer women ask for raises.
+warxdrum Yeah, I'm just referring to the gap present in the video. Also, the likelyhood of women asking for raises and employers assuming the man is providing for the family fall under the social expectation part of this. Definetly a very complex thing.
Same job = Same pay... It is the law. If you could pay a woman less than a man for the same job I would only have females working for me.
Yes and no. Women get paid the same for the work provided, sure, but if a woman leaves earlier than her male counterpart or has other priorities than your company, would you still want only females in your company? Would you still give those same women a promotion over the males who show such loyalty to your company, just for the fact you save money over a year? Especially since those same women will not be there as much as the men would.
Hyperbolic argument, misogynist, sexist, anti-feminist, neck beard, can't find a woman, whatever else. Anyone have an actual argument, rather than an insult? I've been doing this a while.
Winters Flames I said for same work.,
Jay Tee
That is what you were saying, I was simply pointing out that you have a good chance of NOT getting the same amount of work from a woman as you would a man. A man's priorities, as he ages, is to make money. That's good for the company. A woman's priorities become things outside the company as she ages. That is BAD for the company. If you can get the same work from women as men, then they will get the same pay, yes. Good luck with that, unless the man is married and the woman is not.
Winters Flames Yes dude I am sure we are on the same page. Girls wont work doing what I do anyway..
Jay Tee
Would you want them doing the work you do? I'm not talking about the minority of women that actually get stuff done to the level of a man and sometimes better, I'm talking about the vast majority.
It's been 6 years and this is still the best video on the wage gap.
I wonder how much the metrics are skewed by the billions of dollars in income generated by the top %1 which is mostly if not exclusively male
+Adam Baker that is something that's never really addressed in these studies, and i can imagine it would definitely make a difference, but that's why he brought in studies that focused on workers in specific fields 'n whatnot.
+DaedricSheep true that. seems like the most pertinent point is that income disparity derives primarily from total hours worked, in which females lose out on due to child care. I'm not sure if that's necessarily bad though. A big topic for a different kind of conversation I suppose
+Adam Baker Happens for the same reason why there are more Male Doctors(Which Doctors are also part of the 1%.). More Men apply themselves to being more successful, and unlike employees working for companies, these CEOs are handed money by people like you. So essentially, your comrades are the reason why most of the richest people in America are the richest people in America.
+Kyle Dean i dont have any money and if i did i wouldnt hand it to anyone. oh and none of my comrades are rich either. you should write fiction. youre good at completely making stuff up. ill even crowd source you!
+Adam Baker There are more very intelligent men than very intelligent women(women have a narrower/taller bell curve of intelligence) and income has a .9 correlation to general intelligence so yes men are overly represented at the highest levels on income, but they are also more competent than women on the right side of the bell curve. OF course it should balance out with the larger number of very low intelligence men at the other end of the bell curve, but because of minimum wage, unemployment benefits, etc... the curve is normalized at the low end.
If there really was a wage gap then why aren't companies hiring solely women? It's cheaper for them.
There is a common misconception about the wage gap and despite what it's name would imply it isn't calculated by comparing paid wages. It's actually calculated by dividing the earnings of women by the earnings of men with any given time frame. That's because, like you stated, it would be far more lucrative for a business to employ more women than men if you could get away with paying them less. I'ts not about women getting paid less than a man for the same work. It's about women earning less than men over a stated period of time. I wish they would call it the earnings gap but feminist propaganda prevails.
What I'm about to type isn't representative of all men and woman but is offered as an analogy to how the wage gap is determined by using earnings instead of paid wages. I'm not saying that every woman or man fits these descriptions but it's representative of the statistics across the board.
Imagine a man and a woman both get hired at meat packing factory for the same hourly wage. Over the course of a year the man chooses to stay more often to work overtime and chooses not to take days off for his children. The women chooses to work overtime only when it's mandatory. She chooses (or is obligated to) to take multiple days off for school events, doctors appointments, etc. Now if we were to individually add up the man and woman's earnings over a year then divide the woman's total by the man's total it would show that he earned more money at a certain percentage. That's the wage gap.
So why do people call the wage gap a feminist myth? Because feminists don't understand the difference between earnings and wages. They blame the, so called, misogynist male patriarchy for paying women lower "wages" instead of recognizing that the gap is based on earnings. It's not that that gap doesn't exist when you look at the data. It's that the data exists because women and men are freely allowed to makes choices and that, on the whole, they tend to make different choices that affect how much they earn.
steve Thraxx Copy-paste or written out yourself?
inferno I wrote it out. :P
and if women really earned less than male counterparts they could just go to their boss and ask for more and if they don't they could sue.. if you know.. she really has done the same work and hours as men..
P1Tz0N csgo Women can't sue for discrimination simply because they earned less than a man and their employer didn't want to pay her for work she hasn't done.
When one person earns more than another person who's making the same paid wages it always comes down to hours worked.
So if two people making the same paid wage work a different number of hours one person is naturally going to earn more than the other.
"The 77 cents to $1 pay gap is a myth!"
"It's closer to 8 cents, for which the data doesn't reveal an answer and is unexplained!"
????
"That which is unexplained must obviously be due to sexism!"
This is underpants gnome logic.
I want to be paid 30% more as a white man because asian men on average get paid more than me... I realy hate the wage gap myth.
That is what we call a fallacy. He could be right, however his logic does not point to sexism causing the wage gap. It's also circular reasoning: there's a pay gap so it must be sexism which causes a pay gap. That logic sounds more like the start to an echo chamber to me. Still love the vlogbrothers (no sarcasm).
Yeah, it's funny. I never called a girl "babe" yet they always called me that or "honey". I actually like being called a pet name. It's sweet and makes me feel good. I wish people could just say, "I like that" or "I prefer no nicknames, please." Sucks everything is generalized and I can't call girls these endearing names :(
Guess I'll have to stick to "Sarah"
It's not his logic, it's very careful research--look at the references he provided before making the claim that it's a logical fallacy (if you have and still think that, that's up to you). And how can you explain away the fictitious resumes that proved men were more likely to be offered jobs and to be offered higher salaries, especially if the applicant had children?
***** To address the fictitious resumes, and I'll be very clear here, as an employer I would find it unprofessional and inappropriate for someone to put down they are a parent to try to gain leverage to get a job. It would make me feel that you would prioritize being a parent over work. Yes, it is important to put family first, but in the process of getting a job it isn't "work force" experience and therefore would be out of place. Further along in the hiring process would be a better time to bring it up even though I believe both should be separate. It's like saying, "I have serious priorities over getting this job so I should be the first to get this job."
It has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with the first impression of the resume.
4-8% paygap is still significant, like I don't think you would want me to just cut your pay 8%
"Significant" is a word that has a scientific meaning beyond the colloquial use as a synonym for "a lot".
It refers to statistics: When you have a difference of 5% or lower it is used to say that the difference ist so low that it could well be due to chance.
For example, when you toss a coin and get 45% heads and 55% tails the result would count as non-significant, a.k.a. "based on that we cannot claim that the coin tends towards heads because the difference between results is too small."
@@RandomizedCTRL you think that the studies haven't taken this into account? also if differences of less than than 5% are suddenly evil there are still many studies which out it higher than that, indicating that it is both statistically significant (that the pay gap exists). i just don't get what point you're trying to make with this. im very aware of the different meanings of significant, but its usage is relative to context. differences of less than 5% can mean a lot, especially in economics. we don't just throw out economic studies of say, inflation, that notice a less than 5% change just because its a relatively small amount. statisticians don't just blindly throw out anything they get that's below 5% just because it's low, especially in this case where other studies corroborate it.
EXACTLY!!!
I think we can all agree that at least in the us 🇺🇸 the pay gap exist but not because of gender. There are dozens of variables that are not acointed in. Such as jobs that women take, more women take care of children at home, men tend to work more hours, etc. The gender part of the lay gap cannot exist because it is literally illegal to pay someone less for the same job just because of race or GENDER. Unless the business wants to be sued.
@@Holy_VHS_Tape no no you don't understand, the 4-8% pay gap TAKES THOSE INTO ACCOUNT. you think researchers didn't think about that in the dozens of studies on this?
the 4-8% pay gap is because women are allowed, by law, to take paid maternity leave, and that's a risk the employer has to take
+Dominic LaSalle from the employer's point of view how is that different than paid vacation? In both cases a person is being paid for not being at work. Whether is is to give birth, go to Hawaii or have some none pregnancy related procedure done it is all time off.
+Brian Rainey Does the maternity leave take from the paid vacation time?
Paid Maternity leave is not a law in my state, in fact getting it and taking it without getting spontaneously fired for "other reasons" is very rare... there is still a pay gap.
Maternity leave doesn't account for the whole 4%. But it does factor in.
Taking maternity leave does negatively affect pay. The funny part is a woman will recover from this deficit faster than a man will if he takes the same amount of time off.
However many more women will take extended leaves due to children than men will. So this situation affects them more.
Having children is difficult on the body. If you're planning on having children soon it may discourage you from seeking a promotion to a more demanding job. This usually isn't the case for men who will become more aggressive when the added expenses of children are looming. Employers are also skeptical of women having children. Training someone to do a job then having to have another person cover for them is can put a lot of stress on employees. Many women will choose not to return to the workforce once they realize child rearing IS A FULLTIME JOB. So the company will have a high likelihood of turnover if they have an expecting mother to a position.
Talk about a line of misleads. Where do you get this "Work more Unpaid Hours" info without having to pay for it? Because I keep getting promt'd to buy Excel Office.
Now I'd like to know what counts as "Routine House Work" did you pay for all of the data? Does being in the home reading a book while your underage kids are there count as unpaid work? Basically does babysitting your own sleeping 6mo or 16 years count to unpaid hours? I'd also like to know if Travel Time is counted as part of this Unpaid work and where the break down of how far a female vs male spends traveling to work each week? Or does sitting in traffic for 22 hours a week not count, because I get to listen to the radio and that's fun right?
And where is this paygap for Single men and women with no kids? How many single non parents were polled over married people. Because as a Single male, I do 100% of my own UNPAID housework. And with Married couples coming in at about 59% of US house holds, the stats you gave seem to touch on Married couples or maybe Single Mothers, but with no clear data shown if Single fathers were counted.
You can't say there is a Pay Gap in the open but there is a whole bunch of factors we need to figure in to explain it without getting into religion and just glossing over free choice to work less paid hours but then claim that unpaid housework needs to counted for REASONS without explaining why only housework is counted. (I mean I travel almost 2 hour to work 5-6 days a week and I don't count it as work because I'm not paid for my travel) Is this how you twist the data to make your claims. I can't believe you would pass this for as cold hard facts after you explain the data could be cherry picked, which you clearly did yourself. For the first time John, You have come off as untrust worthy to me. Wow. thanks for taking that away from me John. Kinda ruins for me, all the great work you and your bother have done because now I have to examine everything you say to make sure you're not lying, which seems like more unpaid work.
+Evil Power Oh I'd also like to know where tax breaks for families that are pumping out kids and where are these same Tax breaks for single men and women that don't marry or have kids and how this effects over all earnings. See I can't find this info because it's behind pay walls and I don't make the kind of money to continue to debunk your video.
+Evil Power .youtube . com/watch?v=Lc1IKDsvO3E What is a stay-at-home mom worth?
This is the blue pill pandering, the excessive praise you hear from a husband about his wife, it is flattery, but on a societal scale.
Are home depots filled with just contractors and women? Because this is the world these people like to pretend exists. If only it were true that most wives were handy women who could fix cars to toilets.
Companies have tried to sell women power tools by making them pink, this wouldn't be necessary at all if they had been the primary buyers all along.
+Evil Power Brilliant point, who exactly is supposed to pay me to spend quality time with my son while my wife is out getting her hair done? Where's my paycheck for doing my own dishes? What corporate entity would subsidize my power use for using my laundry machines?
Those hours shouldn't have been taken into consideration in this context. We're discussing the pay gap for time worked on the clock, this argument for considering time off the clock is irrelevant.
+Airoch4 Umm its not irrelevant because those are mutually eclusive but interdependent events. The more you have to work off the clock the less you can work on the clock. So even thugh you as a person may feel like u did a whole lotta nothing the whole day...in general women are left with household chores as a their gender-imprinted expectations. While I dont believe women are the only victims of society, they are a victim nonetheless. So I dont feel the need to decline the wage gap to feel sympathetic towards male-centric problems, like persecution of male nurses, non-athletic men and men who simply express their emotions.
+Evil Power Calm down, you don't have to question all the work John and Hank does because of a single video, in which John doesn't lie on purpose, he just fails to see the whole picture. You are being quite harsh on him.
I heard that women are also less likely to ask for a raise in salary or position. So maybe those male librarians who become library directors were more likely to ask for the promotion than their woman counterparts. Anyway, thank you for doing our homework for us, John
+Tee D Preach! Women are definitely weaker and need men around. Ungrateful women should be happy they can even get jobs. -.-
+wolvesrfun I wish I could point and laugh at your mother.
4-8% unexplained wage (earnings) gap. It must be due to explicit sexism! Despite being unexplained........ good job there
Did he say it was explicit malice towards women? Data demonstrates a bias between sexes: strictly based on definitions, this pay disparity is sex-based, therefore sexism.
That doesn't mean men or the powers that be are intentionally paying less...the data we've been given here doesn't demonstrate that.
But it does give us a starting point: we know there's a pay disparity across countries, careers, and income levels: how can we determine the causes of this?
@@goldenquill96 its sexism of coursr duuuh. Turning sarcasm off now.
No. But Sidh believes that whatever it is, it must NOT be sexism. So we have his view lol
No, that's the funny thing about unexplained phenomena, we dont know what causes them, so we only have ideology and guess work to go on. However, if businesses could save 4-8% on labor by only hiring women why would they ever hire a man?
Here's the possibilities that he eliminated:
-Skill levels
-Occupation types
-Employment rates
-Education levels
-Levels of experience
Here's all the possible explanations left:
-Gender inequality
-It's all a lie????? I don't know????
That's as narrowed down as it gets.
"Hopefully without inciting a flame war" Good luck with that.
Gives all sides of the argument and cites sources, people still go crazy
as he said, it's a complicated issue, so there is still plenty to argue about, no worries there ^.^
Nigel Cooper
I can completely agree with that :)
Exactly, people are too uncompromising and entrenched in their own opinions. Key to truth is an open mind
***** hahaha! Me neither!
***** there is no right side. Each argument has their validity. These open ended circumstances are crazy
What I find sad but ironic is how demeaning the placing of blame of the choices portion of the wage gap is. For example, the liberals like to talk about societal expectations but its talking down to women. Women arent capable of making their own choices? Why is it that they are the 7:1 majority in being veterinarians? Not vet science like vet techs. Full on vets. A once male dominated field completely taken over by females. Why? Women wanted to do it so they did. Im all for women empowerment but then you cant complain about how they choose to live
+gjaddajg and who did I call a liberal who isnt?
+gjaddajg but they are liberals. almost all SJWs and feminists are democrats
gjaddajg Correct me if Im wrong but democrats are liberals and republicans are conservative. Almost all feminists and SJWs vote democrat therefore they vote liberal. Tell me where Im wrong.
I personally believe that feminists/SJW's are nearly fascist but in terms of how liberal and conservative are used in this country, they are called liberals
+gjaddajg Wtf are you going on about? They are not on opposite ends of the scale. Fascism is only one step above liberalism.
+gjaddajg well here is where we have an issue. are we running off of the real definition of these terms like in a dictionary or are we using them as they are enacted now a days? the political party the Democrats believes itself to be a liberal and progressive party while acting in a manner and pursuing a system close to fascism. The "liberal" colloquially party of the US is the Democrats so they are called liberal and are what most people refer to when talking about liberals. Based off how they act, it is a bad description. This is similar to when feminists bring up the textbook definition for feminism but fail to see that what they do is not in line with the definition. The current political left is becoming more and more fascist.
This is easily the best take on the pay gap because he brings up factors outside of the job itself and how it’s not about getting paid less in the job itself
Change your thumbnail. Looks like a paid video.
This videos been out for 30 secs and it already has dislikes. People decided they don't agree with FACTS before even watching the video
The average full time male worker works 42 hours per week. The average female full time works 38.5 hours. Before women have children they actually make 1.1% more then men. After they have children, they tend to take more time off then men. Christina Hoff Sommers, a feminist academic has addressed this many times.
let's drop the nonsense about saddling women with non-paid household duties. You could just as easily complain that men are saddled with an unfair portion of the financial obligations.
Additionally, men are more likely to put in 60 hours in a week or more. They also constitute more than 92% of workplace deaths. Interesting that feminists never complain about the gender disparity of workplace deaths. Men are more likely to spend extended time away from their families.
If men really make 23% more than women for the same work why does anyone hire men?
+Travis Gibby
"Interesting that feminists never complain about the gender disparity of workplace deaths."
What are you suggesting? Will randomly shooting kindergarten teachers to get an equal number of deaths solve your problem with this?
"Men are more likely to spend extended time away from their families."
In which case, the woman needs to stay at home - otherwise the kids will be on their own. (Leading, in this case, to women having to take off time from work - cause the kids are sick or need to be taken care of - because the men aren't there to help.)
Why women don't take off to work away from their families? Maybe, because they are still seen as "bad mothers", if they do that. If it's a guy, he'll be taking care of his family (and is really dedicated to this, because he's going to such great lengths)
Geno R "What are you suggesting? Will randomly shooting kindergarten teachers to get an equal number of deaths solve your problem with this?"
I'm suggesting that feminists should be consistent. If you only care about parity in cushy/glamourous jobs, then you aren't really concerned about gender equality at all. You're only concerned about pushing a narrative.
"Why women don't take off to work away from their families? Maybe, because they are still seen as "bad mothers"
Nonsense, my mother worked about 60 hours a week and often traveled. No one saw her as a bad mother. She also made more money than my father. Funny how that works isn't it?
Travis Gibby
Do teachers, nurses, shop assistants, secretaries really have cushy/glamorous jobs?
Sure, they don't risk death on a daily basis, but working night shifts at a hospital isn't cushy....
If you care only about consistency, your own death toll argument is pretty inconsistent. Women had to fight quite a while until they were allowed to join the army - and even longer until they were allowed into combat situations. And you know why? Because the people in charge decided that they weren't strong enough. Now that they are allowed in, they still have to endure ridicule by quite a lot of people - and to be honest, I can completely understand it, if they do not want to be belittled and therefore choose to not pursue this career.
That's once reason why women don't die as often on the job as men - because men do not like women doing these jobs and still (if not actively, at least still through prejudice etc) keep them from doing so.
Either way, isn't this arguing the whole thing the wrong way around? Shouldn't we all go "Why are there so many men killed on the job and what can we do to prevent this?" instead of "Jesh, women, if you want more money, get yourself killed more often..."?
As for your mother, great that you live in an area where this was accepted. I just know that where I live, women still tread on a narrow line between "Why aren't you working? Your kids are old enough for you to start working again/more." and "Why are you never there for your children?".
Geno R "Do teachers, nurses, shop assistants, secretaries really have cushy/glamorous jobs?"
No. Politicians, STEM workers, CEOs, and software developers have cushy jobs. You know, the ones that feminists always complain are male dominated.
"If you care only about consistency, your own death toll argument is pretty inconsistent. Women had to fight quite a while until they were allowed to join the army"
It's 2016, not 1950. If you want a job in the army, enlist! No one's stopping you. In fact, they've made the physical fitness requirements lower for women than it is for men. That's a strange thing to do if they don't want women in the military.
Even so, the majority of those enlisting in the military are men. It's almost as if men and women make different choices when it comes to their careers. But no, it can't be that... It's got to be discrimination.
So I clicked on this video on my lunch break on October 10th, 2022 and I didn't notice it was 6 1/2 years old until I was about half way through it...
Now I'm wondering how things have shifted in these figures with everything that has happened over this 6 year period. Covid re shuffled a lot in most work environments not to mention the economy and the fact that we are currently in a very different political place then we were then.
I'm genuinely curious about this and I would love to see a follow up video! Even though I can understand John not being enthusiastic about re-visiting such a controversial topic.
I didn't expect to find you here, Paleo Analysis!
Thank you for this video and all the research that went into it.
There is a pay gap between movie stars and lumberjacks. FACT
since this is a video about the unfair pay gap between men and women, this obstensively sounds like you are a) mocking the topic, and b) insinuating that men are movie stars (get better wages because they are "celebrities") and women are lumberjacks (provide a no longer lucrative service that soon will be outperformed by machines)
sort of pink
He is correct though. There is a pay gap between those two jobs.
No shit!
i don't have any idea where you got that all he said is they are paid different so why would you assume he is mocking women that are lumberjacks or men that are movie stars. It is incompetent to assume such a thing when he didn't even specify gender in the comment
RUclips should have a report option for, "Obviously didn't watch the fucking video".
So it's not something that requires direct change in the system but rather social change of mindset. This video helped me a lot with my perspective on it. The only thing I hope is that the information still holds up today since this video was released six years ago.
But I don't think there could be a much better explanation for this, this video was super helpful and respectful!
Thank you for being objective and neutral.
You guys need to chill. I understand you have you opinions and all but what John Green was make a claim, support it with evidence, and explain how the evidence relates to the claim. He was trying to fix a mistake he made with statistics in the past. So don’t get all up in his business.
Stay safe,
Random Person on the internet~~
+
The first source he used: AAUW: Empowering Women Since 1881.
Is that an invalid source?
@@soyoltoi openly biased
@@tuatarian6591 Using a source that supports one side isn't being biased. Only using sources that support one side is what you might argue is biased.
@@soyoltoi True, but I think he meant that the source itself is openly biased, not John for using it.
@@DelayedJet no source is truly unbiased
You just stated why the pay gap is a lie... then you go on about house work? Really? So companies should pay them for house work now?
Okay, so I wasn't the only one horribly confused about how women should be paid for housework or whatever he was talking about?
trapd00rspider Well, depends on how you define splitting labor. If I go out and work a 9 to 5 job, I'd expect my spouse to do the housework. The labor would be split between: Me earning money so we can afford life and such, and my spouse maintaining a liveable, clean household, helping care for the children, and providing meals. If you ask me, that's split labor, yet - from what I understood from the video - there's something wrong with women working at home? Or, for some reason, women should be paid for working at home? In all honesty, I'm confused by it all, but maybe I'm just some dumb woman who needs feminism, I dunno :PPP
The segment on house work was more about, in my opinion, women are expected to do more work around the house. A lot of working women also have to go home after work and do chores and take care of children while it's not really expected of men to do that. Therefore, men can spend more time focusing on their jobs and not outside work.
***** OOkay! I don't nesscisarily agree with that point he made, but that DOES make much more sense as to what/why he was saying this. Thank you very much for clearing this up for me :)
+Cynthia King I know in America to live comfortably in a household with out living check to check both partners in a model family need to work. that's the reasons the phenomenon called the "Second Shift" is a reality. America isn't Egalitarian neither can an average household live comfortably with only one source of income. Unless of course the main source of income makes proportionately huge amount of money.
I'm not American, but my parents are (were) employers and I got to overhear some of their policies. Basically, they would try to avoid hiring young women who were either single or recently married, with no children. Their reasoning was, such women are likely to get married/have children a year or two down the line, which would mean taking a long time off work, which would somewhat waste all the time they spent learning the ropes, gaining experience, and would necessitate hiring a new person to replace them for their maternity leave anyway. (Sidenote: yes, most civilized countries have several months of paid maternity leave, America)
So... was that discrimination? I mean, by definition yes, but on the other hand, isn't that kind of a fair point? If you can choose between someone you know is unlikely to be unable to work for months in a year or two, versus someone who is most likely going to be a stable employee for years... doesn't it just make sense to choose the latter?
It is very presumptuous to assume that all women even want to have children, as well as that if they do their husbands wouldn't take equal care for those children.
Scattered Moon Shards No one said "all"; but a 25 year old woman is more likely to have a child in the next 5 years than a 40 year old woman; this is statistically true.
As for the other part... sure, the father might take equal care of the child... that still means the mother would be able to work less, just maybe not quite as much; also, maternity leave would still happen, the father can't exactly do half of the giving birth thing.
+Marconius Both maternity and paternity leaves are equally important and hopefully the society will grow to understand that.
+Scattered Moon Shards Not really presumptuous when there's nearly a 50% ratio of women who have children in that age-group - according to the census information. And regardless of if the husband plans on being a stay-at-home dad, she will still have to take time off to deal with the later stages of her pregnancy.
+Satsaru I'm turning 27 this year and I'm pretty sure not more than 10% of my circles and people I went to school with have children so far. I'm not having any myself til I'm at least 35. The times are changing.
Every parent should take the paid time off is what I'm saying (in the ideal world), so that's not an excuse, just plain greediness.
I’m three years late but let’s start this flame war I had to go get a burger 🍔
Wage gap is real.
Proof: ruclips.net/video/xRbT09r8ekc/видео.html
same but 5 years🥴
@@haydid no, it isn't. Men work more than women, period. Name a SINGLE business that intentionally pays women less. Why don't companies just hire women ad pay them less?
@@godsrevolver9737 It was joke video about simps making girls earn more than boys in streaming industries.
I only said that wage gap is real, I never said men are paid more.
@@haydid so it isn't real, then. 🤦🏻♂️ "it's a joke" is probably the absolute dumbest defense I've ever seen. Was it a joke even though you didn't OBVIOUSLY convey that it was a joke?
I don't know why there are still comments saying the difference in the wage gap is due to preferences in jobs or differences in skills. The 4-8% is comparing men and women working in the SAME occupation with same experience level and skill sets. They are NOT comparing a McDonald's worker to an engineer - they are comparing men engineer to female engineer. I love how people easily dismiss data when it doesn't support their beliefs.
+K0koK00koo If you include more lifestyle choices like distance to work, discomforts and hazards involved in the work the difference in earnings shrinks further. For instance comparing men engineer working with hazardous materials to female engineer who work with no hazardous materials.
Dr Warren Farrell has written a book called "Why Men Earn More" explaining 25 lifestyle choices affect womens ability to earn money and this shows the wage gap to be myth.
Can you give the specific engineering field though cause I am pretty sure mechanical engineering is going to have a different salary then a medical engineer.
+K0koK00koo like he mentioned, the gap increases the older they are. what was missing was the reason behind it. when someone works more hours, that person will faster work himself/herself up the corporate ladder. which obviously leads to more pay.
there is some percentage that is not conclusively established where it comes from. one of the factors may be discrimination or bias. BUT, there is currently no way to know. it is only in the realm of speculation and therefore should be regarded as such.
I appreciate your balanced and informed view on the matter instead of being another 77% of every dollar parrot. But i'd wish you went into more analyses of the 4-8% gender gap difference other than "unexplained economic difference, therefore sexism." Confidence in salary negotiations are a very gendered discrepancy between men and women that are not accounted for during entry pay.
+Eventhorizon1122 "unexplained economic difference, therefore sexism."
Has anyone coined the term "sexism of the gaps" yet? If not I'm officially doing so now.
Last time I pushed for more pay I was told I didn't need it because I had a husband, so we were both earning enough (we did end up in a tribunal for a number of reasons but I wouldn't advise taking that option - it can often end in losing the job anyway). But, usually, when I press for more pay or better conditions and more flexibility (anything really), the answer is there's no money and, if we give _you_ a pay increase _everyone_ will want one.
+Eventhorizon1122 Maybe you are right, it's just because women don't enought confidence in negociations. But why is that? Do you think it's because they are different? I really think that we are all the same, maybe it's because of how men and women are treated different that women have less confidence and this make them earn less. The problem is there shouldn't be these differences based on gender, race, religion or anything else you can think of. We should be equal. (Or that is what I think)
IKR We need more controls!
+Gastón Salgado Are we really the same? Do we react to all scenarios the same?
Different hormones govern us. Those hormones also effect our moods.
Different parts of brains lights up between the sexes during certain tasks/activities.
Sorry but biology does not agree with your feelings.
It feels like everyone has completely misunderstood what the points of this video are. SMH. Thank you for your summary of the evidence, John. You're awesome.
He confused the issues, there is an earnings gap, not a wage gap.
White men make 0.70 for every 1.00 an Asian man makes, its not racism. Its hours worked and carriers chosen.
If a White man chooses to work different carriers or less hours than an Asian man, he should not expected to be paid the same.
@@johngalt5572 there is both issues
If a woman wants to make more money:
. work more
. invest in your career
. choose your job instead of having babies
. choose high payment jobs
so simple
Rosangela Sena 1. wages go down in certain lines of work when more women chose that line of work. 2. it isn’t as broadly accepted for men to be at home with the kids as it is for women, so a lot of the time women don’t really have the option to split the work of caring for children equally with their partner
Thank you!!!!
@@reinbere equally, most men don't have an option to be a stay at home dad. There is a reason that the current social "systems", including those governing relationships between men and women are the way they are. They have served us well for at least since the Achsenzeit, and they are not usually straightforwardly egalitarian. This is complex stuff
If a woman wants to make more money, become a man (don't, fight for your rights). Did you not watch the video? Part of the wage gap is literal sexism.
@@liliannagarcia4940 This isn't evidence, he's just a simp.
I dont think I have ever seen a video this fast.
Get on public transport at 5:30 am and 11:00 pm there will be 80-100% men going to and coming back from work.
Good point
@@manueladasilva6748 i dont get the point they were trying to argue against
Okay incel
How come I never see the mention of how passive men tend to make less in the workplace as well? That is, studies have shown that men that have more "feminine" traits (oversimplifying it as hell, but honestly easiest way to convey it) or the "nice guys" essentially have the same pay gap. Undoubtedly there's discrimination at play as we can see from starting wages, but there's also a point to be made in the fact that men are socially groomed to be bold and fight hard for what they want when women are groomed to do the opposite.
The result is women AND men who are passive and less likely to speak up about getting raises or promotions or making it known when they work the extra mile end up getting walked on in the corporate world. An easy way to see the correlation is to look at how many CEO's and other high paying positions in the corporate chain belong to people with antisocial personality disorder (that is, people who are more likely to throw their coworkers under the bus, see other people as tools, and are unable to empathize with others on a level that would prevent them from being brutal in climbing the corporate ladder). Women in general are more empathetic than men, and I feel that really does play more of a role than people give it credit for.
I only bring up this topic because if people really want to eliminate the wage gap, they need to really look at root causes other than just dismissing as discrimination. That is part of the issue, but there are deeper more complicated social constructs at play as well that also effect men equally as much as women that are ignored.
www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111904823804576502763895892974
+Pikayumyums Adding to this -
Men are more likely to get promotions to higher positions than their female coutnerparts because they are more likely to be more vocal and determined about getting their positions while being less passive (as I mentioned in my above post - people with antisocial personality disorder are also far more likely to get promoted primarily because they have these traits, which are socially conditioned more towards men than women).
Men are more likely to get offered higher salaries if they have children than women because of the different expectations. As a woman, it means that you are more likely to call out if your child is sick, more likely to work less hours and put in little overtime, less likely to come in if called on an emergency, and more likely to use up every single sick and vacation day you're allotted to due to childcare.
For men, it tends to be the opposite, because if you have a child chances are you have to put in to get all the extra money you can for supporting them. This comes from the strong social construct that men are expected to be the primary supporters of the family financially while women are expected to be the primary supporters socially and emotionally. It honestly hurts men pretty much as well as women, as they are often expected to "toughen up" and sacrifice their own luxuries and free time for the sake of the family.
Women are saddled with the responsibility of most of the unpaid work but also have the luxury of being more likely to get careers that are more enjoyable or fulfilling than men, who are often forced to get positions they may not exactly find enjoyable at all just because it earns money. For instance, people love the idea of advocating for more women engineers, but hate the idea of advocating for more women coal miners, sanitation workers, construction, etc. Those jobs tend to be very fulfilling and depressing to work in, but men will take them up for the money if they need to. Women can avoid them, usually.
I appreciate the acknowledgement that it's a lot more complicated than just discrimination. It really is something we can change, but it takes a LOT of change. The largest and hardest portion to change is collectively changing our social and cultural constructs. It also effects more than just women though, as many of those issues aren't exclusive to women, they just happen to be the majority that it affects.
+Pikayumyums Discriminating against traditionally feminine qualities IS discrimination.
Samuel Swinton Never said it wasn't. Point is more that it isn't distinctly a "female" issue so much as it is a personality archetype issue that females tend to fall into more often than males. The key to solving the issue is finding the actual core of it, rather than looking at the surface.
Well, I applaud you for at least saying that the gap is not as large as the often quoted 30%. The remaining gap is still troubling, and we cannot just ignore it either.
It's not troubling. All but 4-8% (as he said) is due to choice, not discrimination.
That remaining 4-8% that is discrimination is due to mothers statistically taking more sick leave to tend to their children than fathers do, so companies are less likely to hire and promote mothers. Also some studies have found first time fathers actually increase their hours of work. Basically it makes better business sense to hire fathers over mothers. Overall this last bit of discrimination isn't due to sexism. So there is nothing troubling about the wage gap - it's just men and women making different choices.
@@shawn980 No you're wrong. Watch the vid again and reread my reply carefully.
@@hrthrhs My bad, you said “all but”, I just didn’t see that at first glance. You’re still wrong though. I have a couple questions cuz I’m a bit confused by your argument. You said that the fact that companies prefer to hire men rather than women because mothers are statistically more likely to take sick leave and take care of kids is not discriminatory, right?
That actually is discriminatory, not all women choose to be mothers, it’s discriminatory to deny women jobs because of the assumption that women are not going to work as much just because mothers are more likely to do so. Correct me if I am wrong (because I usually am), but that sounds like discrimination to me.
@@shawn980 All g. Which bit is still wrong?
@@hrthrhs i wrote about it about 15 minutes ago.
Great video! I really like that you reevaluated your previous position and came to more nuanced understanding. Gender pay gap is real but there's a lot of misinformation about it and this helps get rid of that nonsense.
Wage gap is real.
Proof: ruclips.net/video/xRbT09r8ekc/видео.html
Debunk that if you can
Its real but not because of gender it is other factors. I mean there is a literal law that says companies cannot pay someone less for the same work especially if they are being paid less because of gender or race. If sexism was the main reason all women should just sue the company and get paid tons of money. Or perhaps there are other variable that cause the wage gap like oh I dunno men work longer hours, women tend to work lower paying jobs, men are working higher paying jobs, women tend to stay home and take care of the kids, men are more flexible in change of schedule, and men are more likely to arguing to get a raise just to name a few possible variable. And this is all just on average because there are plenty of women who work good paying jobs and work long hours and the same for men who stay home and watch the kids.
@@Holy_VHS_Tape Something being illegal doesnt make it immediately enforceable, and its difficult for a woman to prove that her making less than a man is discriminatory in court
This is the best and most balanced analysis I've seen so far, but still done by someone with a strong liberal world view (which I share), who thus comes to conclusions which his own research doesn't exactly support = the 4-8% pay gap is due to sexism! He mentions that some of it is do to women's own self-empowering choices to work less, or pursue other interests. What percentage is that?
What he doesn't even mention as any possibility, is that women on average (with lots of exceptions) may not work quite as hard. This may be completely false, but it's a possibility that it's forbidden for the left to ponder. This is closely related to questions of why there are more blacks in prison. We can attribute it all to racism, but there's also the sticky question of very real crimes committed. Also, if non-whites are performing less well in college, it is always because of racism, and it can never be called into question that maybe they just aren't trying as hard. However, if Asian excel at school it is always because of hard work, and if whites do it's because of "white supremacy".
His conclusion was a foregone conclusion, but he did a lot more research to substantiate it, and for this he should be congratulated. But I question his objectivity and willingness to ponder politically incorrect factors.
If, when we take into consideration that some women make empowering decisions which lowers their pay, the margin of difference is some 3%, that's a mere 10% of what we've been led to believe. No matter how much we get upset over, let's call it a 5% difference, we must ask ourselves why we've been sold a 30% difference?
Further, if these jobs are taken on average, were CEO salaries - the exponentially largest, and mostly going to men - taken into consideration? If you spread those astronomical salaries among all men, that's going to kick up the mean male salary. It seems that while men on average make 5% more money than women, it doesn't really mean they make that much more for performing the same job to the same level of "productivity".
In reality, it may be that the male CEOs account for much of the pay gap, most men are paid the same wage as women for the same job, but in the popular mind every man gets paid 30 cents on the dollar more than every women for the same exact job.
Thus, while the roughly 5% difference in pay MAY be at least partially due to sexism (perhaps at the top of the pay scale), the popular portrayal of men (in American) as being so backwards and selfish that they underpay women by 30 cents on the dollar is a sexist dehumanization of men.
He forgot to mention that over 90% of on the job fatalities are suffered by men.
Of course, sexism is absolutely real, brutal, cruel, and even deadly in many parts of the globe (Pakistani honor killings and the gender disparity in China come immediately to mind), but MAY be exaggerated in America for political and politically correct reasons (agenda, narrative, and world view).
Still, the very best analysis I've seen so far, and the only one that's willing to look from multiple angles with a huge amount of objectivity. I'm not 100% persuaded, but I don't think he'd want me to be.
Has anyone else heard of the equal pay act of 1963. if your boss is actually paying you less you can take them to court.
1963 you say, hasn't been around long then has it, maybe it's still in the implementations stage....
I've said it before and I'll say it again, John Green is a national treasure.