Getting men paid family leave actually makes a lot of sense. It would level the playing field somewhat for something that shouldn't be just left up to the mom's anyways.
Absolutely, it is a (dull) two person job. Men who don't want or like children should take extra care not impregnate a woman if parental duty inconveniences them. #cheerfullychildfree
You're right, family leave would benefit everyone. New moms should not be left alone with a newborn all day. They need rest, recovery, and help with the baby. Why do you think post partum depression and psychosis are so common in America? Most tribal and "less developed" societies help out new mothers a lot. It's how we evolved. Because the child is born so underdeveloped and the birth is so physically harmful to the mother, humans need a close-nit family group to successfully survive childbirth and the postpartum period. Fathers should be able do their part to take care of their families. Mandatory paid maternity and parental leave for BOTH parents makes that possible.
You know a lot of [cisgender] men willing and able to take over pregnancies on their partners' behalf, t clark? I'm not sure if you're willfully ignorant or deliberately disingenuous but, no, that does not make sense by "that logic" or anything that can be accurately described *as* logic. But i do wish you the very best of luck with every fertilized egg that implants in your own sovereign uterus.
The salary secrecy seems to me to be a big factor but when everyone's salaries were leaked at my old company we saw a very interesting result. One of the male welders who was a very quiet, introverted older man who was highly skilled was actually paid less than a female production scheduler who was very brassy and outgoing. This was consistent through the company. Introverts were paid less and all the highest paid employees were highly pushy or extroverted. Gender seemed to be a nearly non-existent factor. This, to me, says it was outgoing people combined with pay secrecy that primarily motivated gaps in earnings.
Look at it through an introvert vs extrovert lens and you will learn that America values extroverts while many others prefer introverts. The book Quiet talks about this
Its more about being aggressive over just winging it. I did the aggressive thing, now I pay a fee to have a union take care of my negotiations. Stop killing the unions, they're responsible for 40 hour work weeks vacation and healthcare, FMLA in the workforce and a lot of other things. Plus men and women union employees make exactly the same for time served and experience.
***** Kinda like how Pacman said women hold more Ph.D/MA/BA yet not all degrees translate to high earnings. I'm a male with a MSW, a woman with an MBA will make more than me.
+bewilderedkettle It isn't just semantics. Both words have subtle but significantly different meanings. If two different people had a $10/hr salary, for example, but one worked 40 hours/week and the other 36 hours/week, then: > Pay = $10/hr > Earnings = $400(week) for the person who worked 40 hours, and $360(week) for the one who worked only 36 hours. But when people consistently (and incorrectly) call it a "pay gap" (which it isn't) instead of an "earnings gap" (which it's what it is), it gives credence to the idea of pay inequality where there is none.
VisionStorm1 Pakman specifically stated that when you control for qualifications, hours, etc, there is still at least a 9¢ difference between what a man and a woman makes. That is a pay gap and it DOES exist. Next time try watching the video.
The wage gap should be named the, "Earnings Gap" 1. There are discrimination laws in effect that prevent businesses from allowing such a practice. 2. Woman are more likely to pick jobs that have flexible hours/make less. 3. Woman are the most educated gender in the United States, yet CHOOSE degrees that will not make them competitors or even make them apart of how much people (Men) make in STEM fields. 4. Men are more likely to pursue careers based on the how much money they will receive, work longer hours, ask for a raise, and go into STEM fields. The problem with the "Wage Gap" controversy is that people have a problem that it isn't a 50/50 split. They are mad because in our society we have allowed woman to CHOOSE their own path in life. What I wrote is simplistic, but I think it does wrap everything nicely.
+Sidney Hathaway It is nicely wraped up and the only problem I have with your ponts is, that it seams that woman are sometimes hinted at (one way or another) that they should choose that way. Not a big change but one that can and should get adressed in the political sphere. How, you might ask? By the things laid out in this video, maternity protection and pay transparency. NOT by some sugesstion of crasy feminists that what a law forcing a raise to the point they seem fit, and NOT waiting for all businesses to catch on to the idea to hire with same standarts (even though most of them are already on that page not everyone is)
1) Those laws are unenforceable if you have no facility to compare wages between workers. 2) Your assertion is nothing but a historical trend that is no longer that status quo and you need to leave the 70's. 3) This is not about their choices but what we value. We have decided to pay less for their jobs in spite of the fact it requires more education to qualify for. 4) Your generalities are not borne out by numbers and everyone is working longer hours and asking for raises is not the defacto solution for men either. Pretending it is on woman for not asking for a raise or on their choices is empty and out of touch. They are not mad at having choices, they are mad that those choices are punished by paying them less for the same work. Your spin is nothing but a set of chamber of commerce talking points meant to steal money from working families for a little longer to no one's benefit.
One thing regarding the point about degrees earned. Yes, women are graduating with more degrees than men, but from what I information I have found, women graduate with less valuable degrees. A degree in gender studies has less earning potential than an engineering degree. Women are, for example, known to not get as many STEM degrees as men.
+TheEmperorGulcasa If you look at the picture he actually put up, you can easily see that trend. Women heavily dominated health science, education, and social sciences. They also slightly favored arts, biological/agricultural sciences, and public administration. On the other hand, men clearly dominated math, engineering, computer science, and physical science. They also had a slight edge in business. Then combine it with the fact that women tend to join lower-ranking jobs (David addressed this with the surgeon/nurse example, which he admitted contributed somewhat to it).
+Gary Proudfoot The best explanation of the GPG I've seen. Nuanced and unbiased. Naturally, that's going to piss off ideologues on both sides. David was brave to do this.
“Women simply chose to enter lower paying jobs”. I’d like to flip that on its head and suggest that our society has always, historically been male-centered, so jobs that women gravitate towards, such as nursing, teaching - even fashion, décor and design - are condescendingly seen as less valuable and therefore worse-paid. Yet, a job like teaching has a crucial impact on society and should be treated as such. In Finland, teachers are paid a salary on par with doctors, which means it attracts the best and brightest. Basically, Fins realise that teachers are role models for the future of society and this system has had massive impact on the performance of their students. A Freakonomics podcast outlined how the USA lost its finest teachers to other professions during the 1920s and 1930s when women joined the workforce on a larger scale: Other professions were seen as more esteemed and teaching was looked down upon. Yet, before that, the smartest women (read: people) in the country used to become teachers, as that was one of the only vocations available to them at the time.
+Julia Eccles It's about supply and demand. If the supply of people willing/able to do something is high, the demand shrinks, and the salary with it. I'm a male teacher, and my pay is totally fair. I didn't study as hard as doctors, and I'm not willing to clean sewers. It's 100% fair.
This is actually a lot less agenda driven than I expected. I'm legitimately pleasantly surprised. I was really close to unsubbing but this is actually really well researched and kind of neutral. Kudos Pakman.
***** Most of them leading up to this one. To be fair I don't really watch him much, the titles are just really stupid and clickbaity. On par with TYT (which would make sense considering the network he's under).
+HeirOfGlee The symphonies that started doing the blind audition thing also tended to receive higher accolades from critics (I certainly thought they sounded better). Which makes sense when you consider the superiority of hiring based strictly on merit.
The actual affects of the blind audition verse the previous audition methods had an increase from one to two women...yet they state it as "50% increase," since it did double. It's extremely misleading for them to say that on a 20year old study and the study did say over all there was a 1% increase. scholar.harvard.edu/files/goldin/files/orchestrating_impartiality_the_effect_of_blind_auditions_on_female_musicians.pdf
Uncommon Sense_360 Did you even bother to read the study? Your critique implies the studies findings were not consistent with it's own abstract, which I quote: "[T]he weight of the evidence suggests that the blind audition procedure fostered impartiality in hiring and increased the proportion of women in orchestras."
godXofXpath Which the portions didn't increase to "50%" as the study states in the Making further sense of the results on hire: *"our point estimate is that about half of that increase - 1 percentage point - was the result of the effect of the screened audition process."* Meaning the actual increase was only 1%, and they also state within the study that more women going into the field also helped increase the number. I not doubting there was bias in auditions in the 70s or 80s, but to use a study dated about 19 years ago is laughable. Are you going to use crime stats in the 70s and 80s to prove something today? You would be laughed at. Seriously this is laughable in 2015/2016.
okay I work overtime, cover illnesses, work holidays and weekends get paid the same as woman who works set shifts with 2 half days. it's straight up bullshit if you can't do the job fully like the rest of the staff who signed the contract, you shouldn't be paid the same.
you get to work the over time for her half days man. simple math she works less make the same as you whom works more. I've seen this in ever job I ever had where the girls didn't have to work as hard.
TL;DR The real paygap is somewhere less than 20 cents. The only reason people may say it doesn't exist is because others want to spin it to look like it's due to discrimination when truthfully no one really knows why the although small gap exists.
People do know why it exists. Primarily its because men and women choose different jobs. The gap is NOT for a man and woman doing the same job. Men are Engineers, women are child care providers. Are you surprised there is a pay gap between those two occupations?
Yeah, pay secrecy, while working 80-100 hours a week, for a contractor for the US, I was paid $2/hr less, than the 5 individuals I supervised (4 females 1 male) for around 2 and a half years (I was not only the most senior in my unit, I was the most senior in my department, over current managers) until I realized what was happening and threatened to leave. They were paying new hires, 2 dollars an hour more than the person they had supervising the unit, who'd worked there for 5 years. Even still, my pay was lower ($3 dollars lower/hour) than that of the previous supervisor, who was a female. This was an office dominated by women (probably 95%), and all managerial positions were held by women. This is merely anecdotal evidence, for my own life, and one particular job. Both Christine Hoff Sommers, and Claudia Goldin (First woman to gain tenure in the Harvard Economics Dept) suggest the gap is lower than even you suggest in your video. Might be worth talking to them, since they've done extensive research on the matter as well.
Brian Murphy. It sounds like you were discriminated against based on your gender. People in power often reward those they associate with, or identify with, rather than those more deserving, and are more suspicious of those that don't fall into the same category as them. This is why what happened to you happens more often to women and minorities, as the 'power holders' are typically white men. I don't want to belittle your experience and I'm sorry you were underpaid. I hope you aren't embittered towards women in general because of specific women treating you as men have treated women and minorities. I don't believe in the trend of punishing men for the bigotry of those that came before them, and I hope you now have a job where you are fairly paid and appreciated.
@@amyworks8621 Correlation does not imply causation. Without due proof or studies I would just really, really, really hope you didn't state "men in power" follow this same corrupted viewpoint of siding for the people most like them. The mere fact that their seniority didn't stop someone under them, a fellow male, from getting paid more than them indicates this was overall an issue beyond discriminating blindly on the other sex. And it still isn't something you should use to point fingers without actual, factual grounding.
You found the corrected wage gap to be around 89% to 91%? That's the lowest figure I've heard to date. Most research papers have the wage gap somewhere between 93% to 97% and that's without factoring pay raises.
+Afro Samurai I've heard 94-96%, which leaves roughly 5% that is easily explained by salary negotiations. Men do it, women don't, and that extra 5% is just the right amount of wiggle to push for in an interview.
@@jdedrington , except that's actually bollocks. Here in Australia, there was research done recently that tested whether men and women asked for pay rises at the same or different rates and it was found they actually do make requests at the same rate but women were rejected more often and they were actually viewed more negatively for asking in the first place. I don't know for sure but I doubt that America is all that different to Australia in that regard. After all, there are plenty of people here in Australia who make the same argument you do, so it's rather likely that you are just as wrong as they are.
Where are you hearing 89-91%? Because I have always heard numbers between the low 70s and mid-80s. Maybe in specific fields the gap is on the order you cite, but taking the entire US?
The people/publications that call it a "wage gap" are specifically trying to convince people that women are oppressed by men. If they were being honest, they would call it an income gap. More importantly, it doesn't need to be fixed. The fact that women and men tend to gravitate towards fields that suit their interests is the sign of a free society. Here in the west, we value freedom of opportunity over numerical equality in all fields. That kind of enforced 50/50 gender split is something that would be more appropriate in a Marxist or communist society.
You're really downplaying the effects of personal choices made by individuals. What we have is not a pay gap between men and women, but between mothers and non-mothers. We *know* that men and women make different decisions and prioritize their careers differently. We *know* that women, generally, choose jobs with more flexibility, lower recurring-education requirements, and less personal risk. *Women*, in large numbers, choose jobs that give them the flexibility down the road to potentially start a family, strong interpersonal relationship potential (such as teaching, child-care, veterinary medicine, or nursing), or general personal satisfaction and fulfillment. You talk about education and the fact that women are earning more college degrees, but you missed the mark here. Women are between 60 and 65% of college grads, this is true. However, women primarily populate fields such as general nursing, social sciences, teaching, and veterinary medicine. They populate fields that a lot of people want to work in, which creates *more* competition and drives down wages in that field. In contrast, men generally choose careers with the highest earning potential. Men choose educations with specializations, such as advanced medical degrees or applied mathematics, science, chemistry, and technology. Men choose specializations in careers that are in demand, difficult to earn, and difficult to maintain. On the other side of the spectrum, men also choose the careers with high pay, low education requirements, that are exceptionally physically demanding. Examples include steel work, construction, mining, sanitation. These are the jobs with the highest injury and fatality rates. What we see is not a discrimination between men and women. It isn't a "gendered" pay gap. We are seeing the end result of a lot of people making decisions to balance their work and home lives. Yes, men generally double down on their careers when the baby comes along. You didn't really seem to understand or express why--it's because the woman is removed from the work force anywhere from 12 weeks to several years. It isn't just job experience that drives your personal wage up, but also uninterrupted time in the work force (we call this expertise). Again, this is the result of a personal decision, and some families work the other way, with the woman doubling down and the man being a stay-at-home father.
Good job taking a nuanced approach and remaining as unbiased as possible. As always, the reality is much more complicated. Like the great American philosopher John Dewey once suggested, where there are dichotomies, the corresponding reality will often be somewhere in between (paraphrasing/summarizing).
+Gene Starwind A failure by what metric? David took a nuanced view of the topic, and came to a conclusion which was based off of the best available evidence.
godXofXpath That's why he failed. He was more concerned with being 'nuanced' than actually finding out the truth. Not ever issue is 50/50, like Climate change for instance.
+Gene Starwind I really don't think he was particularly concerned with argumentative parity. David went to great lengths to the evaluate the evidence, and came to an evidence-based conclusion. Nuance alone does not mean false equivalency. To unfairly equate two augments is to necessarily disregard at least some of the evidence, but David did not do that. David was primarily concerned with evaluating the best possible evidence to come to a conclusion, not with maintaining false parity.
godXofXpath I haven't seen anyone else come to the conclusion that the gap is anywhere near as a high as 11 cents. He also didn't make mention of the fact that the gap has reversed for young women and men. There are a lot of omissions from this piece. Heck, even feminist argue it's like 7 cents. Frankly, other people, like Sargon have done a far better job presenting the facts.
+ExBruinsFan That also leads into danger pay. Now heres the Swedish feminist solution, we force those men not too work when they have a kid to make some average numbers equal, or we ban danger pay, or we force women to work in dangerous jobs. Gotta get that stupid irrelevant number equal.
+SuperJBrowne You are dead on it. He glossed over an important difference here. He seems to want to expose bs statistics, but he can't bring himself to go all the way.
@@YogGroove Not a good argument. He talked about societal pressures and norms that direct women towards lower-paying jobs in the first place, and STEM is one of those. It's rapidly changing, but your point is not sufficient explanation for why the overall economically evidenced gap is there. You can say all you want about not enough statistics are being taken into account, but then you're just distracting everyone into looking for stats to justify what we already know, which is that in aggregate, the gap is there, and it's bolstered by a lot of job and sociological data that already HAS been gathered, that we ALREADY know about.
The BBC in the UK (hardly a bastion of right wing views) found that women into their 30's working full time earn slightly MORE than their male counterparts. So women's salaries are impacted when they decide to have children and effectively take a different path regarding their life choices. For this and many other reasons that have been explained over and over and over again the literal gender pay gap may be real but there is nothing unfair about it.
Because no one ever breaks the law! Wage theft is also illegal but quite commonplace. Same with racial discrimination. The evidence shows that some gender discrimination is going on.
Two words: Free Will. The women choose to want jobs that are flexible. Honestly. If their jobs were so important to them that it trumped their wanting to spend time with their kids, then they could send them to child care, or get them a helper, like my mother does. The fact that they want to be with their kids more while the dads are the ones who tend to be the career focused ones is nothing to slight them for, but it doesn't mean that the world and the law needs to bend to the delicate sensibilities of feminists who will scream "MUH OPPRESSION!" at everything they don't like.
*The fact of the matter is that when you look at the big picture, women generally do not want the same job types as men. Far more men go into STEM jobs like engineering, mathematics, science, and technology. Those jobs pay way more. As a result, when you look at the total amount of money earned between men and women, men make more. But when you account for the differences in job types and education, the wage gap vanishes to a much smaller amount (5 center per dollar - not the 23 cents claimed). To illustrate this point further, white people only make 86 cents for every dollar that an Asian person makes. The reason is not because there is some discrimination going on. It is the exact same reason that men make more than women, as a whole. This is because even more Asians go into STEM jobs than average Caucasians. Wage gaps really have very little to do with discrimination. It just so happens that women, for whatever reason, do not choose to go into higher paying jobs, and do not choose to work as much overtime, etc. And it just so happens that Asians go into high paying jobs even more. That is why whites make 86 cents for every dollar than an Asian makes. And that is why women make 77 cents per dollar that men make. It's just looking at the total amount of money that a group makes. It is not accounting for differences in what types of jobs different groups go into, it does not account for voluntary overtime differences, and it does not take into account educational differences, etc. It's only looking at the total income of men versus women - and this produces a very misleading result.*
A lot of talk about unconscious bias, which is at least a step up from the unwarranted accusations of systemic racism and sexism. However let's keep it real: Bias applies outside of race and gender. In fact, there are biases far worse than those. I'll list a few qualities below that are as likely or more likely to cause bias than race or gender: - Lack of height (for men) - Baldness - Physical deformities (ex. cleft chin) - Uglyness - Perceived lack of wealth - Social conditions (ex. Asbergers) - High-pitched voices (for men) - Obesity Someone who can be described by any of these qualities would be on average more discriminated against than someone like Larry Elder or Emma Watson. Yes, there is bias based on race and gender. It is not near the top of the list though. Does anyone disagree that a short, balding, ugly, white male with a high-pitched voice will have significantly more bias against him than the average female or average black guy? Why then do we not focus on how much more these factors play a role? My guess is identity politics. It doesn't fuel the victim narrative in the same way.
In terms of my source: That list of biases is paraphrased from a Morgan Freeman narrated documentary I saw on unconscious biases. The program is called "Through the Wormhole", but I cannot remember the particular episode name. Looking through the list of episode descriptions would likely yield the result if you're interested.
1) Alimony not considered earnings 2) under reporting of earnings of hookers, strippers, beauty salon workers, and waitresses.... Can these factors be included in the equating of earnings.? How many young female students report gifts and housing from their sugar daddys?
You brought up the point that women get more degrees than men, but you failed to mention the kinds of degrees that women end up getting, which is very important. A degree in Social Work will not lead to as much pay as a degree in Petroleum Engineering. It also would have been beneficial to mention that the wage gap among milennials is much lower and women even earn more than men right out of college. Also most of the studies I have seen say that the wage gap shrinks to 4-8% so I'm dubious about your 9-11% statement. Not saying you're wrong based on whatever you read just that disparities like this are why this is a difficult thing to talk about.
An employee who is willing and able to work longer, more flexible hours will, of course, be of more value to an employer. I don't understand why anyone objects to that.
You are missing one important thing. Divorced women with kids that get child support and live with another man . They are every managers/bosses nightmare. They have 3 sources of income. So they miss a lot of work and that work/job is far less important to them than somebody with only one source of income. This phenomenon is never talked about nor researched. Also child support is not counted as income .
If car insurance companies get to charge men more because they're more likely to get into an accident, why wouldn't employers pay women less because they're more likely to prioritize family?
Anyone who works knows 77 cents is bullshit. My female colleagues throughout my life have made as much as I have - or more. The gap exists in a tiny amount, and mostly in the older generation still feeling effects of true sexism. However, now it is all but nonexistent. Women, however, tend to take more time off due to pregnancy/maternity leave or choosing to work less hours to take care of children. My wife and I are a perfect example. We work in similar fields, and she actually makes more than me per hour, YET, since the birth of our child she took a lot of time off with our baby and subsequently has worked part time for several years since. So, looking at our gross incomes, it would appear she is being paid less than me for the same work. But she's not working full time like me, she and I chose that she work part time to help raise our child. She earns more than me per hour but takes home less annually. It's not a pay gap in our case, and the case with the vast majority of people.
And I will add, because of less time put into her company, her ability to justify raises goes down as well because she has been at the company less time. So that sets them back for the rest of her life.
From the US Bureau of Labor Statistics: In 2014, employed people worked an average of 7.8 hours on the days they worked. More hours were worked, on average, on weekdays than on weekend days-8.1 hours compared with 5.7 hours. On the days they worked, employed men worked 52 minutes more than employed women. This difference partly reflects women's greater likelihood of working part time. However, even among full-time workers (those usually working 35 hours or more per week), men worked longer than women-8.4 hours compared with 7.8 hours.
+Franz Yama Well that just makes tf00ts arguments more scientific, despite the fact David has a degree in economics making him more qualified to understand the study of this issue.
Here's the thing, when people say there isn't a pay gap (as you've shown it's down to less than 10% and the remainder is due to child care that forces you to focus less on work. You can argue over whether or not it's fair and what can be done about it, but that's just the market correcting itself) they usually follow it up with "there's a earnings gap". But that gap is not an issue, it's just the free market working as intended.
I think we should talk about the Gender Work Gap where men are forced by societal pressures to devote more of their lives to work, often harder and more dangerous work. This obviously leads to the Gender Life-Span Gap where men die younger than women.
There is good reason to believe that the pay gap is less than 9-11%. The CONSAD study comissioned by the US Dept of Labor found the gap to be 4-7% accounting for a large - but not exhaustive - range of factors. Even the American Ass'n of University Women found it to be 7%, accounting for many factors, but fewer than CONSAD. Here are a range of relevant factors (most, though not all of which were factored in by CONSAD; NOTE: CONSAD even said that the gap could have gone to zero if all factors were included): 1. Hours worked - men work more hours per week, even among only full-time workers; 2. Weeks worked per year - men work more; 3. Years worked - men retire later; 4. Educational and career paths - Men more likely to go into higher income fields such as trades, engineering, etc. Even within specialties, men choose higher earning paths. For example, in med, men are more likely to become surgeons, women to become GPs and pediatricians; 5. Following from 4, men are more likely to work in fields that compensate less desirable, more strenuous, riskier work with higher compensation. Men are more likely to take jobs that put them in physical danger, that require well over 40 hrs a week, that require work in unpleasant conditions (e.g., inclement weather, remote locations - what is the female equivalent to working 100 hour weeks in the Northern Alberta tarsands hundreds of miles from home? There isn't one); 6. Men are more likely to relocate for work or commute further, thus expanding their net and increasing the chance of securing higher wages; 7. Men are more likely to work as non-salaried employees - such as contractors. These people will often get paid more per hour but will get less in terms of benefits and paid time off. Thus, they will appear to make more because other non-compensatory factors are not always considered by pay gap metrics; 8. Women disproportionately pursue careers offering work life balance - e.g., avoiding 45+ hrs/week, gravitating toward professions/jobs that allow for flex-time, work-from-home, and that offer more in the way of sick days, etc. Then consider that research has found that men are more likely to negotiate their wages than women. Lastly, consider motivations. Does anyone doubt that men, on average, are more driven to achieve high socio-economic status and income than women? A man and a woman will both be better off by being wealthy, but a man's mating prospects are closely linked to his job title/rank and income. A man also has more to lose if he really falls through the cracks - less charity available to him, more face lost in accepting such charity. Likewise, men and women both are better off to be good looking. But would any of us disagree that a woman will pay a bigger social price by gaining a bit of weight or not looking her best? If it doesn't surprise us that the average woman spends more time on her appearance, why should it surprise us if the average man is often willing to prioritize his income more highly than most women? A man will pay less of a reputational price for gaining 20 pounds, and a woman will pay less of reputational price for giving up 15% of her income in order to pursue a career in a field she is more interested in, or to be with her family. Likewise, do any of us really think that as many men as women are willing to make serious career sacrifices for childrearing purposes? Let's create equality of opportunity. Lets open more people's minds to the prospects of males and females going against tradition in how they allocate earning and family duties - IF it's what particular couples want to do. Lets permit equality and allow people to do things traditional of the other gender's role if it works for them. But lets not pretend that males and females, as classes, do not have different tendencies. And as for some fields deemed "women's work" being devalued and underpaid, and the opposite happening to male dominated fields. Men's fields become male dominated because men are drawn to high earning professions and are willing to relocate, travel, take physical risk, work long hours, and work in uncomfortable situations to get that money. If someone were to offer comparable wages for cushy jobs with comfortable hours, who wouldn't want that job? Men and women would be pummeling the company with resumes. And then the employer would reduce the pay because they would know they could get an employee for less. But if the job was not cushy, did no have great hours, required relocation, and had other factors that reduced the number of ppl willing to do the job, they'd have to increase the pay. And men are more likely to take he bait of more money at the cost of such sacrifices.
+DeathBy Trolley 2 other factors, one on the side of the wage gap: 1. Women are more likely to be single parents because they get to choose whether or not to have a kid had accidentally, and are more likely to be awarded custody. This will impair their career performance. For men paying child support they now have even more incentive to work longer hours, etc., to make more money. 2. A factor that works against women - mentorship. I have heard of - and totally believe - that in STEM and related fields, women can have a harder time than men finding mentors to take them under their wing. I have no doubt that this will disfavour women. This would be a constructive thing to address.
David, I'm sure you're aware the argument of "women earn more degrees and have higher GPA's, therefore women should earn the same (or better) money" is just as simplistic as the 77 cents argument. You need to go more in-depth. The type of degree matters. Computer Science and Engineering specialties are going to net you a much higher salary than a Social Work or a Communications degree. Men naturally gravitate towards more technical areas while women are generally drawn to the liberal arts and humanities. If you look at the sex ratio of different engineering degrees at PayScale.com you would see it ranging anywhere from 80% male to 95% male, this even despite all the efforts made into trying to get women interested in STEM. Then compare and contrast with say, social work and the arts where the career options are neither great nor well paid the populous of these classes is overwhelmingly female. Just because women on average graduate with more degrees doesn't mean they are graduating with the right degrees. The GPA argument is also highly misleading. Taking all the grades of all female students and dividing them to all the grades of all male students is not going to provide you with any in-depth understanding of either how capable or how hard working the students are. Deriving conclusions from such a statistic would be an example of some very poor sociological & economics research. Again, you need to look into the types of classes female students are taking vs male students. How academically rigorous the curriculum is. One would assume if such factors are being corrected for the GPA gender gap would most likely disappear.
He was talking the majority of the video about studys which take that in account. Same jobs and same qualification. They are not comparing gener study major with chemical engineer but 2 chemical engineers both the same work expierience. Did you even watch the whole video? It was just a counter argument to " men are more intelligent than woman" or do you want to say thats true ?
David, it was truly painful to watch this video. You did 'not' take the differences between the types of work far enough. For instance, take engineers. This is one area where feminists will point out that even in the field of engineering women are paid, on average, less than men. However, when you look closer still it turns out that men tend to go into different fields of engineering - like chemical - that pay more. It is a bit like an onion, the more you it peel away, the more the pay gap disappears. The 'experts' - and many who have looked into this over the years - say that when one does 'proper' research, the pay gap is reduce to within the statistical margin of error! Also, instead of using economic statistics , this point can also be made using history. For instance, in the 1950's the women's movement protested the then pay gap of 4/5 of what a man made. Notice how the woman's movement back then used the fraction 4/5 instead of what they use today - which is a percentage of somewhere around 80%. This switch - from a fraction to a percentage - hides the fact that the pay gap has 'not' change much in 60 years. This is true even though laws have been passed and women have moved more, and more, into the work place. So, how could this be? It is because the pay gap wasn't due to 'discrimination' back in the 1950's when they protested the 4/5 pay gap - (however, it is true if you go back to WW2 or earlier.) This point is made 'clear' by the fact that the pay gap has 'not' changed much since the 1950's even though our 'laws' and 'culture' have changed considerably. What blinds people to this reality is bigoted feminist ideology and dishonest advocates providing misleading statistics for years. David, you are clearly trying to be objective here, which is great, but you are still plainly influenced by feminist ideology - you no doubt have taken too many Gender Studies classes. As a result, you seem to accept rather easily, and without evidence, the assumption that employers and society are innately sexist. You never even seem to notice that you NEVER provided a single bit of evidence to support this underlying bigoted assumption in your video. Instead, all you did was dig a little deeper, and then you said: Ah, well there is still a 10% gap which must therefore be discrimination. No, you just did 'not' dig deep enough and then you gave into your 'bigoted' feminist bias. What statistical evidence did you provide that supports your 10% assertion? NONE! And, if you had, I would have destroyed it here! But, of course, you didn't. I suggest you listen to someone - I know, you know already - Dr. Christa Hoff Sommers who dissects this faulty feminist advocacy research. By the way, these feminist advocates are 'Post-Modern' frauds who have already been exposed as charlatans - i.e, the "Sokal Affair." I also 'strongly' suggest you look into "Post-Modernism" and the current academic stalemate often called the "Science Wars." As it is highly relevant to this topic. I also suggest that you read Dr. Stephen HIcks book "Explaining Post-Modernism" - particularly the last two chapters. I hope you stay verdant in regards to this issue, because you're WRONG! Take care,
+Gedanken also that in seed study he mentioned is bullshit because he didnt even talk about the occupation their looking if you look at modeling or nursing you'll find men to be under represented if you look at welding or firefighting women are going to be under represented www.healthleadersmedia.com/nurse-leaders/men-still-woefully-underrepresented-nursing www.nursingtimes.net/student-nt/do-men-still-face-stigma-when-choosing-nursing-as-a-profession/5069150.fullarticle journals.lww.com/nursingmanagement/abstract/1998/10000/nursing_a_fine_line__patient_privacy_and_sex.20.aspx www.goodtherapy.org/blog/men-underrepresented-psychological-research-studies/ www.professionalnursing.org/article/S8755-7223%2810%2900146-8/abstract www.aacn.nche.edu/media-relations/fact-sheets/enhancing-diversity so cut the crap
People are forgetting that pay discrimination due to someone's race or gender is illegal. Women also have the option to sue the business their working at if they are being discriminated against.
You see, this is EXACTLY what CH Sommers is talking about when she says that false statistics are not going to help women. When people spout off about the 23 cent pay-gap, you can almost see the internet itself splitting in two as two separate groups of people turn their backs to each other and stop listening to anything the other side has to say. However, when you acnowledge all of the mitigating factors and drive in that a 23 cent pay-gap does not exist and begin narrowing in on the real number (about 7 to 10 cents,) then you actually start to engage the other side of the table and get some real discussion started.
One thing that I think is important is women appear to have less of an inclination to jump into high paying fields like Computer Science. Sure they get more degree's but the most popular degrees these days aren't high paying or high demand. I teach programming and I tell you at the high school level getting girls into a coding is extremely difficult. They just take no interest in it. At the middle school level and under it's not a problem at all. Some have taken drastic methods such as changing the names of Computer Science classes into something more appealing towards women. The demand for female programmers is pretty damn high.
I'll tell you why. Our brains are different. And we hate programming, and even if we like it we probably aren't as skilled. There are exceptions, but the female brain does not have as refined abilities in that arena. My dad is an engineer and mechanic and my brother was an electronics geek. I loved watching them take things apart, fix them, talking about it. But there was always a point I stopped understanding them, no matter how much they explained. I can do most computer maintanence, I can build my own, take it apart to clean the fans. I don't truly know how it works. I can change my own oil. I still have to go to my dad when something actually breaks. I took shop twice. I can make a beautiful cutting board, but my guy friends took half the time and made decent ones, and my dad made our garage himself. He's never used a manual. I always use one. We don't need women in tech unless they are just as good as the men. Not one more than that. It's just like the military. I know we are cut from different cloth. I'm fine with that. The low percentage is exactly what we should expect.
emurphy66 I disagree slightly. I heard somewhere that men tend to do marginally better then women in Math. And such women go into fields that are more social, and don't have them sit behind a computer alone all day. However in the 80s and prior there were a lot of female programmers. A lot of Atari games were made by women. And video games were marketed to both girls and boys. After the video game crash though, when Ninendo came out with their home console for some reason they marketed only to boys. From then on the Computer = Boys relation just became standard. I constantly hear young girls tell me "coding is for boys"
@@xSwordLilyx "And we hate programming, and even if we like it we probably aren't as skilled" Wow wow can you please talk for yourself and not on behalf of the entire female population?? No we don't hate programming, we're not naturally less skilled in computers or math or anything else. I was always the best in math at school, I always loved computers and spent a lot more time talking about computers and video games with my male friends than about fashion and make up with girls. But yea, unsurprisingly, I was the only girl like that. Wanna know why? Because most of those other girls were socialized differently than me; they grew up with a very rigidly "girly" education (aka what parents think a girl should do or like), whereas I was free to do and like lots of things, "feminine" and "masculine" alike. My parents didn't worry that I would play with toy cars and playing cards just as much as I would play with dolls, or that I preferred playing strategy and action videogames rather than dress-up ones. I always loved math games and puzzles. Also, I spent part of my childhood in Belgium, where kids education is gender-neutral: boys and girls were encouraged to do exactly the same things, the same physical activities like racing, climbing, swimming... when I got back in my home country, there was a huge divide instead: during break for example, _all_ boys played football while _all_ the girls just sat there gossiping. It was super weird for me. The way we grow up as children and especially the type of activities and games we do, is what shapes our brain differently. This is what will make it harder or easier for us to get into different things. It also greatly influences future interests, which play a role as well. I chose Psychology at uni for two reasons: I was interested in knowing more about the human mind, AND I was too intimidated to go into Computer Science because there were almost no girls. I was afraid I would feel out of place, uncomfortable, or even looked down upon by everyone. I bet many girls end up giving up those paths for the same reasons. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy: you start believing that if there's only boys, there _must_ be a reason, maybe it really _is_ a boy's thing and you will fail, so you give up on it and you end up reinforcing the stereotype yourself. Recently though, I decided to try and learn programming by myself anyway; I found coding _extremely_ fun and rewarding, so I kept doing it on my own and in one year I was able to successfully code a couple of different types of games, and I never felt like there was a point where things started to feel out of reach for me or too hard because I'm a woman and my "female brain" is somewhat unfit for that kind of stuff. On the contrary, I continuously try to find more challenges to overcome and new things to try with programming because I genuinely enjoy it and I believe I'm pretty good at it. And when things get really hard, I just try harder. Also, I got to know many other female programmers online who are absolutely _great_ at coding and I guarantee you, there's absolutely no difference in competence between them and the guys. I respect your personal experience, but that's just what it is: YOUR experience. Don't generalize it because it's kinda insulting when you try to convince others that all females can't be good at something just because _you_ couldn't.
+Michael Smith www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/14/study-finds-surprisingly-that-women-are-favored-for-jobs-in-stem/ This what you meant?
you're an employer with an equal male and female applicant and can only hire one. the male wants to work his hardest for as many years as he can to rise as far as he can, hopefully ending as ceo. the female wants to work hard enough to provide for her family but not so hard that she'll be too absent as a mother and wife. she doesn't want to be ceo, and she'll take much more time off than the male after having a child. her productivity will go down over the years, as opposed to the male's, which will go up. is it discrimination to choose the male? really?
B Question: Was the potential of the role clearly communicated to both candidates? I can bet my bottom dollar it wasn't. This is why women are often passed up for future promotion at the jump. Assuming that the Woman wouldn't work as hard, would be unwilling to put in the time and isn't motivated or ambitious enough for top job. Heck, a woman can be discriminated against before even setting foot into the interview room, simply because she is of reproductive age with the possibility of getting pregnant at any time and the employer doesn't want to deal with any of that ie the interruptions, the accommodation. I don't get it. why don't they just hire robots instead of problematic humans!?
I was really looking forward to this piece but to be honest I'm pretty disappointed by it. David used "university degrees" synonymously with "job qualifications" which is obviously an erroneous point to try and make. He also made no mention of the higher paying STEM jobs and the enormous difference between male and female graduates in those fields. I think those are two key things that were overlooked in this video.
Zebarbas Agreed. I think all this data also serves as kind of an indictment on higher education being broadly considered the key to getting a good career. We see all these women loading up on useless BAs that don't get them anywhere and think "look at all these poor hard working university educated women being shut out of the job market due to discrimination" when we should be thinking "look at how useless these BAs that everyone is getting are".
+sausagemcbean The straight-out-of-college unemployment and underemployment rates have been going up steadily for a while now. I think this is similarly reflective of the trouble with higher education as it now stands. It's also a shame how little attention this issue gets with the media in general. I'd like to see David weigh in on this.
godXofXpath Progressives never have anything constructive to say about college age underemployment. For them the conversation usually begins and ends with student debt and raising the minimum wage. I've never heard any contributions to the question of why so many young people can't find quality jobs other than "greedy banksters ruined the economy".
sausagemcbean Yeah, I'd like to see someone address the structural deficiencies which may be leading to this. Student loan debt, the minimum wage. and corporate banking greed/fraudulence all seem remarkably more like symptoms than the actual problem to me. That being said, David tends to adhere to the best evidence- like his gamergate coverage. Most other "progressives" I heard talking about the issue fell handily into supporting the "it's just misogyny" camp, whereas David made an effort to put equally hard questions to both sides of the debate and maintain a rigorously objective attitude.
godXofXpath I agree. I definitely wouldn't consider myself to be a progressive, but David is by far the most rational and level headed progressive YT political commentator and I generally enjoy hearing what he has to say.
I'm a male and I work 55-60 hours per week. I'm supervisor where I work. My Wife only works about 35 hours per week at her full time job. She chooses to work less, bc she chooses to to take a lot of time off.
+Solomon Martin [edit] I'm a dolt: watch from 10:00 onward, there's a literal litany of studies, experts, and evidence David basically just lists. Ends at around 12:00 when he begins talking about potential legislation.
You also need to take into account the generational gender pay gap. Among millennials, there is almost no gender pay gap and it's narrowing over all. www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2014/beyond-bls/millennials-and-the-pay-gap.htm I theorize this has to do with that the women of older generations, when they were first entering the labor force did have discrimination in the workplace, were not educated as well, etc back then. So over all, they started lower and have a harder time to make up for it even today. Once the older generations die off, I do believe the gender pay gap will be basically gone. A lot of people seem to think women are being paid less because of discrimination, but I am skeptical of that since it's 2016 and anyone who does that would have a law suit. I don't think women do earn less except for the older generations, and that's because women once were discriminated against, and they were once more wanting to take time off for family whereas the millennial generation, of which the ones who have children, are less likely to take time off for family.
Amazing, many people posting about all the things that adjust the pay gap towards men, until the pay gap vanishes. Not a single thing goes the other way. "We need to adjust because women choose lesser paying jobs" "We need to adjust because men are forced lesser paying jobs" Both adjust happen in the same direction, because people have been tricked by the words "forced and choose", but told they are doing math. Myth upon myth upon myth demonstrated in this thread. "Businesses would just choose the cheaper". Yes yes.... that's why key interview skills include eye contact, a firm handshake, and a well made suit. Because we're absolute meritocracies that have no biases. Every study shows massive hiring discrepancies for women and minorities with identical qualifications. The name at the top of the paper massively skews callbacks on CVs. Then there are the performance issues. Whilst the libertarian brigade are out in force today saying "There is no pay gap", there is the other part of the brigade out today too saying "They did it to themselves", and the other other part saying "They must be objectively worse". Pay attention to that. Some of your fellows are out in force saying they can't carry as much, so must be worse programmers. Some of those people are going to be hiring programmers. Remember the meritocracy line from earlier? You can watch it not be true in your own community. That's just the stuff I shouldn't have to explain before we even get to the parts that do. Generally speaking you can name many factors in any complex system. It's very easy to pick your favourite 10 and have them point away from the simplified rule. If you're not looking at all the factors though, you're not doing any work that is intellectually worthwhile. You're just fooling yourself to not have to adjust your ideology.
if you contend that 'fair' is an irrefutable, objective and definable quantity - then you never had any interest in hearing anything other than your own voice
I'm gonna reserve my judgement on the things said here until I can research them more myself. But I just wanted to say thanks for actually even doing a piece on this! Kudos.
@4:50, Care to list what the "controls and restraints" are? ... because I don't see any documentation, and most of the time when I see this sort of "the gender pay gap is still 90 - 95 with 'corrected factor' data" claim, the claim almost never includes anywhere close to the 37 factors that Warren Farrell lists in "Why Men Earn More" (one of the best sources from the 'wage gap is a myth' side). Instead, its usually acknowledging 2 or 3 factors and calling it a day. In other words, to make a valid claim, PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT'S IN YOUR CLAIM. How are you coming to that number? And if you left out some of the 37 factors claimed by the "there is no wage gap crown" why did you leave them out? Don't just gloss over this. If this channel is about anti-regressivism and having discussions based on facts, then do like school and SHOW YOUR WORK. Otherwise, frankly, you don't have a legit leg to stand on. Come on Pakman. I know you can do better than this. Please upload your work or make another video about it.
Great piece, David. The nuanced approach you took to this issue is really a refreshing change from the simplistic arguments made whenever this issue is debated.
I don't entirely agree but it is nice to see someone discussing this with reason and looking for evidence. The Young Turks'd probably spend 40 minutes screaming "MISOGUYNHNY"
It depends on how the research was conducted. I haven't looked into the study but the way it was set up suggests there was a foregone conclusion, which means there could have been a confirmation bias or skewed results somehow.
EgalitarianismPlus women were hired 50 percent more often, when the people in charge didnt know their gender vs when they did, and you dont think discrimination against women exists? what other reason could there be? if you have nothing to deem it false, and havent even done the research why deny it, this affects alot o f women. is it possible just possible, that you dont want to acknowledge it because like white privilege it makes you feel uncomfortable to imagine something so unfair exist subconsciously in the minds of most people or are you purposefully trying to protect your privileged. im sorry if this is offensive but i find it hard to understand what it is that you have such a hard time accepting yet havent done the research to support these hunches. maybe...just maybe the bias is yours and not the other way around?
Since this phenomenon of paying women less for equal work exists so prominently in society, why not you list some examples of specific businesses that pay women less? This shouldn’t be difficult, right?
Although I appreciate that this video was less bombastic than most regarding this topic, it continues to perpetuate the myth that the primary cause of the earnings discrepancy between males and females is systemic sexism, This is in spite of the fact that no credible evidence has been presented to substantiate those assertions. It is somewhat telling that your opening montage included only two academics, both of whom are opponents of the myth. Skeptics have exposed the flaws in methodology and analysis of every major Feminist study purporting to find a link between women's earnings and sexism. Although you noted in the video the "gap" decreases each time a new factor is discovered and adjusted for, gender ideologue (including those arguing for additional regulations in the montage) simply ignore the new results and continue pressing the 3rd wave (Neo) Feminist agenda. What I find truly puzzling is why this information is being treated as breaking news. When the US Department of Labor released its 2009 study, it determined that the "gap" was between 4.8 and 7 percent, and a more recent 2014 study released by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) - certainly no friend to feminist critics - it concluded nearly the same findings. In addition, it suggested a possible explanation for the remaining deviation; men tend to negotiate their salaries, rather than accept a first offer. As we can see, the issue is extremely complex, and the more data we collect, the charges of sexism become less credible. Why then is the public continuously bombarded with the 77% figure? Could it be that they are not honestly interested in equality of opportunity, but rather their goal is for guaranteed outcome? Theirs is a classic "God of the Gaps" argument (pun intended). The NeoFeminists spy a possible gender issue that cannot be explained on a bumper sticker, then immediately assume it must be that boogeyman collectively known as the "Patriarchy". Careful thought and reliable, repeatable scientific experimentation shows this simply not to be the case.
ENiGMA Sorry, I should have been more clear. Just do not read too much into the name. It is meant only to imply a sentiment, and nothing more. Thanks again.
The first thing you have to address when arguing the Gender 'Pay' gap is defining the difference between, pay and earn. There's also a difference between qualified and experienced. The other thing is you are paid to work and be productive, if you are not productive you should not get paid.
+David Pakman Show - 12:20 - If its actually in the ballpark of 9 or 10%, then it shouldn't take as long as those projections indicate, as they ground the current pay gap at 23%.
9:00 why is that unfair? Women seek more flexibility - companies seek more availability. It's a free market. You negotiate. The more the company moves towards your flexibility requests, the less money you will have to expect. The more you offer to comply with the companies requests, the more you can expect to be paid.
It's unfair that the expectation is that women handle family and therefore they are the ones who need flexible hours instead of flexibilty and family burdens being split up more equitabily
Kayla Marie Should that not be discussed within the family tho?? It isn't or at least shouldn't be a societal thing but a mutual agreement between partners
Chavez Harding *It isn't or at least shouldn't be a societal thing but a mutual agreement between partners* Wrong, it should definitely be a societal thing. The unpaid work women (or to a lesser degree men) do to raise children, care for the elderly, etc.... directly impacts societal health. It is literally what keeps society livable.
Guess what? More and more people, men and women are seeking more balanced work lives. Employers need to understand they get better, happier, healthier, more productive employees if they have policies that encourage well being and personal time. Just showing up, and working long gruelling hours on salary doesn't mean it's effective. Employees are people, not robots.
+Andrew Neumann I did watch the entire video and that is why I do not agree. For as far as I saw he forgot to mention the STEM fields, which play a very significant role in this. It has to do with study's women choose and he kind of glanced over it, but didn't go in depth on it.
Zubac twelve Even if the video is not a scholarly article, or something of the level of a thesis or dissertation, it still looks at the issue in a non biased and objective approach. By far, this is better than most people when commenting on this issue. In truth he also didn't touch that much upon the difference based on state, income levels and job areas as well as he should of. This of course changes percentage on the dollar in many ways. For me, the video clarified more on the points of how the issue is commented and argued in many situations, and by many people without using all the facts associated. A good video is one where it looks on a subject in a clear light, addresses the main points in a simple and understandable way, and opens discussion toward the subject. On those accounts, the video is at least passable, especially for what you'd expect for a RUclips channel.
Zubac twelve Depends on what you consider is objective: 1. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. He used the facts that he researched, pointed out that the issue does exist, but is commonly poorly handled and either over exaggerated or flat out ignored. At most, the only thing you can argue wasn't objective was him claiming that we should try to diminish this wage gap; however, that in and of itself doesn't outright signify bias in the creation of this video.
I basically meant the assumption, so we have not figured it out a 100%, sooo that is sexism. It is basically the god of the gaps the smaller the percentage gets they hang on even more to the small differences.
The way you summed it up at the end, just made me think two of the best ways to help this is: a) people need to stop having so many kids, and b) if you do have kids, you should stop getting divorced. Seems like that would help things, but of course, people want to keep procreating and leaving their partners. If women don't have kids, they can work on their career. And if they do have kids and stick with their husband, they wont be the primary bread winner.
Pakman, I can't think of a lower priority than gender income inequality. It's silly, and you're silly for dignifying it. Let's focus on class inequality, you dunce. What's the worse that will happen by not giving women extra privileges? Just because it's harder for women not to have kids doesn't mean it's impossible. Why should companies pay people for life choices? Why shouldn't there be consequences for making impulsive investments as serious as creating new life on this dying planet?
How was experience and on job performance taken into account when determining the gender pay gap? Also, when asking "is it fair to women that they have to spend more time with their children than working due to societal/biological pressures?" you could easily flip the scenario and say "is it fair that men have to spend more time working than with their children due to societal/biological pressures?" and say the system is biased against men. I believe that women and men should be given equal opportunities to pursue careers and families and I also believe that women are naturally more likely to focused on family than men and vice versa for men and careers.
+Jorg Ancrath I think they are not naturally more focused on family than men, rather girls are taught (by their parents and the whole society) to be more family oriented and boys are taught they should rather play with cars etc. We tauch women from early on that they should focus on the home and family and men should bo more stoic, not care about babies as much as women. I've seen a lot of kids from gender neutral families enjoying playing with both dolls and cars, kids don't care if they're not told they should care.
As far as I'm concerned, the remaining gap when you control for every measurable difference in career choice is best explained by two issues: 1) Pay negotiations, which women have been shown to perform less well on consistently across decades of research. 2) Gender bias. Dozens upon dozens of studies in social psychology have found a consistent bias against women in male-dominated jobs: this bias is not the result of anyone consciously deciding to discriminate against women, but the result of a subtle cognitive bias that's born from internalization of stereotypes. The gender pay gap is smaller than some activists make it out to be, but to claim that it doesn't exist altogether flies in the face of every single piece of evidence that exists. An honest argument would claim that the gender pay gap is _smaller_ than 77 cents, not that it's nonexistent altogether.
+Zennistrad1 3. Women pick different types of companies to work for. You will often find companies that care more for their workers with higher percentages of women at the expense of salary. Vice versa you will find companies that focuses on salaries to usually be lower percentages then the industry average.
John Cobalt That's also something to consider, but the thing to keep in mind is that when companies provide extra benefits their value is typically less than the reduction in wages that results from taking benefits. Companies that "care more" for employees don't just pay less, they also compensate less.
Zennistrad1 Sure the value of the benefits is lower then the value would have been in raw salary but it usually also comes with a more lax atmosphere which is also highly valued by women in comparison to men. I worked quite a few years as a HR consultant and this difference between men and women choices lead to the biggest difference in wages that I could find personally yet you can't "measure" it for studies such as these.
It was one big sausage party in all the computer science classes I took that led to my high paying career. Not one of the men in those classes was a chauvinist. They were more or less all keyboard white knights, and undateable losers. I knew my degree would lead to high pay. There weren't that many women in the business classes either. You know, the ones where they teach you to be the Boss, the Leader, the highest paid person in the business.
I think we've already got a solution, haven't we? When people want to start a family they have to decide amongst themselves how much each of them will be responsible for money-making, and how much each of them will be responsible for home-making. If you can't come up with a compromise, don't start a family with that person.
Yes, women are earning more college degrees, but the real question that this video didn't touch on is what degrees are they actually earning? Not all degrees are created equal. If we look at the table at 5:53 we can see a difference in degrees that men and women typically earn. For example, Arts and Humanities was 53.6% female, whereas Engineering was only 22.2% female. That is just one example. Most of the degrees that lead to high paying careers (due to supply and demand) were earned by men. There are also MANY other reasons for the so-called "pay gap" (I prefer the term "earnings gap" myself. Women aren't PAID less; they EARN less) that this video didn't touch on. I suggest people read "Why Men Earn More" by Warren Farrell (former National Organization for Women board of directors member) where he outlines 25 different life choices people make, which have an effect on their earnings. Because men and women typically value different things, they inevitably make different life choices. Here's a summary of his book: www.warrenfarrell.net/Summary/ There are income gaps everywhere. Why is this an issue? This isn't some problem that needs to be fixed. Not all jobs pay the same nor should they, and people who work longer hours SHOULD be paid more. It's only fair. My friend is a doctor and she gets paid A LOT more than I do as an early childcare teacher. And so what? She absolutely SHOULD get paid more than me. We BOTH made CHOICES that led to me EARNING less than her. Personal choice is not oppression.
+PacificRimNZ I was actually just about to point out Dr Farrell's book. This right here is spot on. We are seeing the end result of a lot of individuals making choices based on what they value and prioritize. There isn't some enigmatic bogeyman lurking behind the curtain, manipulating everything.
Here's another problem. I work a six figure salary job in healthcare. Most of my colleagues are women. I tend to invest my money in real estate and the stock market and drive an old, beat up car. My colleagues tend to spend all their money on clothes, fancy Euro vacations, high priced luxury apartment rental, BMW's, &c. They bleed money. Every time I ask one of my colleagues out on a date, they reject me, because they want a man that makes more than them. A lot of them do find higher earning men, get pregnant, drop out of the workforce, and continue to live their luxury lifestyle on their man's dime. If they think there is even a 10% chance they can win the lottery like this they won't settle for their equal. They're hardwired through evolution to seek men that have more assets than them; they are sexually turned on by those men by design.
Also because I make good money, I'm a target for every low earning, irresponsible woman that too wants to win the lottery after years of 'just having fun'. Women are going to have to do their part to close the pay gap.
David, you are doing it again.... You are trying to be so fair, that you end up being biased. Once all the factors are taken into consideration the pay gap is nowhere near 11 cents! It's like having a climate change denier debate a legit climate scientist, and calling the debate fair. It's not fair, because it gives the illusion that each position has merits.
+Gene Starwind Upon what evidence do you base your claims. The David based all of his conclusions firmly in the best available evidence from the scientific literature- are you calling the scientific method biased? Isn't David's lack of bias apparent in that he rebukes claims made by BOTH sides of this issue?
***** If by "feminist papers" you mean "scientific, peer-reviewed papers" then yes, that is what he bases his evidence on. To write those off as a biased "pile of vomit" is to write off the scientific method and peer-review.
godXofXpath The peer review happens after it's published, and for social sciences it basically never happens anyways. You can publish just about anything if you try. There was one recently published in science, god knows how they pulled that off, that claimed women make 20% less than men on ebay, which they attributed to subconscious bias, despite the fact ebay doesn't show the seller's sex. The assumptions and conclusions were quite laughable!
Gene Starwind In order to secure a grant for research, most institutions require a peer-review board to okay the study, beforehand. Besides, what difference would it make if such studies were only peer-reviewed after their completion. If their results are erroneous, the peer-review board will not okay the publication of the study. What evidence do you have which supports the notion that peer-review "basically never happens anyways" in the social sciences? I am unaware of any such literature. And while you really can publish whatever you want, it will not be in a peer-reviewed journal. Yes, there are "publications" which allow any author to publish anything so long as they pay a submission fee, but those are generally disregarded as they are not subject to peer-review, nor any other quality controls, for that matter. However, those are not the journals we're talking about. We're talking about well-regarded, peer-reviewed publications for which there is no good evidence that they are particularly compromised, in terms of bias or otherwise.
godXofXpath That crazy feminist that attacked a student in her safe space got a grant to go to a twilight convention. Social sciences are a joke nowadays! You can't trust anything coming out of it in academia anymore Read my post again, Science posted a bullshit article about women on ebay!.
+Stig Helmer In truth, men spend more money than women. www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/11/25/who-spends-the-most-money.html www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3246381/Do-men-like-shopping-women-New-survey-finds-males-spend-time-money-stores-female-counterparts.html
flower37075 The issue at hand is that women earn less then men but have the same or greater living quality then men. Even if the man is the official purchaser of a car you can be pretty sure that the wife is included in the decision making and she also benefits from the purchase.
Stig Helmer I am calling bullshit. Men buy more clothes than women. So how is a woman benefiting from a man being more clothes? Men buy more alcohol, more personal products, more entertainment, more food. It is and has always been about the men.
flower37075 Don't be silly. Women own more and spend more on clothes and personal products. I don't have numbers to support this but use the fact all female acquaintances, all stores and all experiences I've had consistently tell me that women spend more on clothes. I've googled but cannot find sources of claims that men spend more then women. All links lead to marketing companies and gossip magazines etc. I encourage you to present an actual report demonstrating actual numbers.
speculation as to why a gender pay gap exists is not evidence for discrimination. show me evidence that there is wide spread discrimination against women's pay, not just "oh it could be because of their gender, therefore it is".
![Gunna - HIM ALL ALONG [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HiCxoDeo0hc/mqdefault.jpg)
Getting men paid family leave actually makes a lot of sense. It would level the playing field somewhat for something that shouldn't be just left up to the mom's anyways.
Absolutely, it is a (dull) two person job. Men who don't want or like children should take extra care not impregnate a woman if parental duty inconveniences them. #cheerfullychildfree
Oh c'mon, pretty sure abortions would be freely available at ATMs if men could get pregnant 🙄😆 Focus on your own life.
You're right, family leave would benefit everyone. New moms should not be left alone with a newborn all day. They need rest, recovery, and help with the baby. Why do you think post partum depression and psychosis are so common in America? Most tribal and "less developed" societies help out new mothers a lot. It's how we evolved. Because the child is born so underdeveloped and the birth is so physically harmful to the mother, humans need a close-nit family group to successfully survive childbirth and the postpartum period. Fathers should be able do their part to take care of their families. Mandatory paid maternity and parental leave for BOTH parents makes that possible.
@ Then why not come up with a law where the husband and wife do some sort of a rock paper scissors game or something in order to make the decision?
You know a lot of [cisgender] men willing and able to take over pregnancies on their partners' behalf, t clark? I'm not sure if you're willfully ignorant or deliberately disingenuous but, no, that does not make sense by "that logic" or anything that can be accurately described *as* logic.
But i do wish you the very best of luck with every fertilized egg that implants in your own sovereign uterus.
The salary secrecy seems to me to be a big factor but when everyone's salaries were leaked at my old company we saw a very interesting result.
One of the male welders who was a very quiet, introverted older man who was highly skilled was actually paid less than a female production scheduler who was very brassy and outgoing. This was consistent through the company. Introverts were paid less and all the highest paid employees were highly pushy or extroverted. Gender seemed to be a nearly non-existent factor. This, to me, says it was outgoing people combined with pay secrecy that primarily motivated gaps in earnings.
Look at it through an introvert vs extrovert lens and you will learn that America values extroverts while many others prefer introverts. The book Quiet talks about this
Its more about being aggressive over just winging it. I did the aggressive thing, now I pay a fee to have a union take care of my negotiations. Stop killing the unions, they're responsible for 40 hour work weeks vacation and healthcare, FMLA in the workforce and a lot of other things. Plus men and women union employees make exactly the same for time served and experience.
Yeah but your anecdote doesn’t mean that the data in this video is wrong..
So in summary, don't ask, don't get.
Extroverts are also more likely to negotiate their salaries, advocate for themselves, and challenge authority.
Stop calling it a pay gap. It's an earnings gap, very different.
***** Kinda like how Pacman said women hold more Ph.D/MA/BA yet not all degrees translate to high earnings. I'm a male with a MSW, a woman with an MBA will make more than me.
+bewilderedkettle It isn't just semantics. Both words have subtle but significantly different meanings. If two different people had a $10/hr salary, for example, but one worked 40 hours/week and the other 36 hours/week, then:
> Pay = $10/hr
> Earnings = $400(week) for the person who worked 40 hours, and $360(week) for the one who worked only 36 hours.
But when people consistently (and incorrectly) call it a "pay gap" (which it isn't) instead of an "earnings gap" (which it's what it is), it gives credence to the idea of pay inequality where there is none.
And of course nobody mentions the productivity gap
canitka ptulos
I
VisionStorm1 Pakman specifically stated that when you control for qualifications, hours, etc, there is still at least a 9¢ difference between what a man and a woman makes. That is a pay gap and it DOES exist. Next time try watching the video.
"Women make 77 cents on the dollar" is the absolute best example of lying with statistics.
The wage gap should be named the, "Earnings Gap"
1. There are discrimination laws in effect that prevent businesses from allowing such a practice.
2. Woman are more likely to pick jobs that have flexible hours/make less.
3. Woman are the most educated gender in the United States, yet CHOOSE degrees that will not make them competitors or even make them apart of how much people (Men) make in STEM fields.
4. Men are more likely to pursue careers based on the how much money they will receive, work longer hours, ask for a raise, and go into STEM fields.
The problem with the "Wage Gap" controversy is that people have a problem that it isn't a 50/50 split. They are mad because in our society we have allowed woman to CHOOSE their own path in life.
What I wrote is simplistic, but I think it does wrap everything nicely.
+Sidney Hathaway which peer-reviewed literature suggests this?
+Sidney Hathaway It is nicely wraped up and the only problem I have with your ponts is, that it seams that woman are sometimes hinted at (one way or another) that they should choose that way.
Not a big change but one that can and should get adressed in the political sphere. How, you might ask? By the things laid out in this video, maternity protection and pay transparency. NOT by some sugesstion of crasy feminists that what a law forcing a raise to the point they seem fit, and NOT waiting for all businesses to catch on to the idea to hire with same standarts (even though most of them are already on that page not everyone is)
Summed up succinctly.
AYY AYY I am a high achieving female engineer. The gap is in ALL AREAS. WAKE UP!
1) Those laws are unenforceable if you have no facility to compare wages between workers.
2) Your assertion is nothing but a historical trend that is no longer that status quo and you need to leave the 70's.
3) This is not about their choices but what we value. We have decided to pay less for their jobs in spite of the fact it requires more education to qualify for.
4) Your generalities are not borne out by numbers and everyone is working longer hours and asking for raises is not the defacto solution for men either. Pretending it is on woman for not asking for a raise or on their choices is empty and out of touch.
They are not mad at having choices, they are mad that those choices are punished by paying them less for the same work.
Your spin is nothing but a set of chamber of commerce talking points meant to steal money from working families for a little longer to no one's benefit.
One thing regarding the point about degrees earned. Yes, women are graduating with more degrees than men, but from what I information I have found, women graduate with less valuable degrees. A degree in gender studies has less earning potential than an engineering degree. Women are, for example, known to not get as many STEM degrees as men.
Yep that was a disingenuous comment he made. I'm sure he deliberately left that point out.
+TheEmperorGulcasa If you look at the picture he actually put up, you can easily see that trend. Women heavily dominated health science, education, and social sciences. They also slightly favored arts, biological/agricultural sciences, and public administration. On the other hand, men clearly dominated math, engineering, computer science, and physical science. They also had a slight edge in business.
Then combine it with the fact that women tend to join lower-ranking jobs (David addressed this with the surgeon/nurse example, which he admitted contributed somewhat to it).
+TheEmperorGulcasa Look at the statistics he puts up at 6:00 . Most of the hard-sciences and engineering jobs were dominated by men.
Wow David this was fantastically done, you show true liberals how to do a a video like this on a very contentious issue, good job.
Shut up. Conservatives don't have any damn integrity.
+curioussebastian That is your opinion it is definitely not a fact.
+Gary Proudfoot The best explanation of the GPG I've seen. Nuanced and unbiased. Naturally, that's going to piss off ideologues on both sides. David was brave to do this.
+sevlevboss Yes i agree, both sides will find this hard to question although i look forward to there responses.
“Women simply chose to enter lower paying jobs”. I’d like to flip that on its head and suggest that our society has always, historically been male-centered, so jobs that women gravitate towards, such as nursing, teaching - even fashion, décor and design - are condescendingly seen as less valuable and therefore worse-paid.
Yet, a job like teaching has a crucial impact on society and should be treated as such. In Finland, teachers are paid a salary on par with doctors, which means it attracts the best and brightest. Basically, Fins realise that teachers are role models for the future of society and this system has had massive impact on the performance of their students.
A Freakonomics podcast outlined how the USA lost its finest teachers to other professions during the 1920s and 1930s when women joined the workforce on a larger scale: Other professions were seen as more esteemed and teaching was looked down upon. Yet, before that, the smartest women (read: people) in the country used to become teachers, as that was one of the only vocations available to them at the time.
+Julia Eccles
It's about supply and demand. If the supply of people willing/able to do something is high, the demand shrinks, and the salary with it.
I'm a male teacher, and my pay is totally fair. I didn't study as hard as doctors, and I'm not willing to clean sewers. It's 100% fair.
So I'm confused as to what's stopping women from moving out of those fields
This is actually a lot less agenda driven than I expected. I'm legitimately pleasantly surprised. I was really close to unsubbing but this is actually really well researched and kind of neutral. Kudos Pakman.
What videos made you consider unsubscribing
***** Most of them leading up to this one. To be fair I don't really watch him much, the titles are just really stupid and clickbaity. On par with TYT (which would make sense considering the network he's under).
+0MikematicOnUTube0
Some amount of click bait titling has to be forgiven. I mean, after all it is how they make money.
reaperoa I mean it's just the stuff he covers, he's way too progressive and boarders SJW at times. Very similar to TYT as I said.
+0MikematicOnUTube0 Could you explain in what ways he is to progressive for your tastes?
That orchestra statistic is INSANE. Even in music?
+HeirOfGlee The symphonies that started doing the blind audition thing also tended to receive higher accolades from critics (I certainly thought they sounded better). Which makes sense when you consider the superiority of hiring based strictly on merit.
+HeirOfGlee Old institutions often have a patriarchal bias
The actual affects of the blind audition verse the previous audition methods had an increase from one to two women...yet they state it as "50% increase," since it did double. It's extremely misleading for them to say that on a 20year old study and the study did say over all there was a 1% increase.
scholar.harvard.edu/files/goldin/files/orchestrating_impartiality_the_effect_of_blind_auditions_on_female_musicians.pdf
Uncommon Sense_360 Did you even bother to read the study? Your critique implies the studies findings were not consistent with it's own abstract, which I quote:
"[T]he weight of the evidence suggests that the blind audition procedure fostered impartiality in hiring and increased the proportion of women in orchestras."
godXofXpath Which the portions didn't increase to "50%" as the study states in the Making further sense of the results on hire: *"our point estimate is that about half of that increase - 1 percentage point - was the result of the effect of the screened audition process."* Meaning the actual increase was only 1%, and they also state within the study that more women going into the field also helped increase the number. I not doubting there was bias in auditions in the 70s or 80s, but to use a study dated about 19 years ago is laughable. Are you going to use crime stats in the 70s and 80s to prove something today? You would be laughed at. Seriously this is laughable in 2015/2016.
1:33 I'm high right now, but is the ceiling really trying to hypnotize me?
+Janice from Accounting Look at the floor!
Keep your eyes on your work!
okay I work overtime, cover illnesses, work holidays and weekends get paid the same as woman who works set shifts with 2 half days. it's straight up bullshit if you can't do the job fully like the rest of the staff who signed the contract, you shouldn't be paid the same.
you get to work the over time for her half days man. simple math she works less make the same as you whom works more. I've seen this in ever job I ever had where the girls didn't have to work as hard.
TL;DR
The real paygap is somewhere less than 20 cents. The only reason people may say it doesn't exist is because others want to spin it to look like it's due to discrimination when truthfully no one really knows why the although small gap exists.
+0MikematicOnUTube0 Negotiation skills?
leerman22 That's my bet, but there's no real way to tell without intense studies and surveys.
+0MikematicOnUTube0 If you watched the video, you'd know David gave a number of reason that the pay gap exists.
Rob McCune ... I know... I never said it didn't I don't think?
People do know why it exists. Primarily its because men and women choose different jobs. The gap is NOT for a man and woman doing the same job. Men are Engineers, women are child care providers. Are you surprised there is a pay gap between those two occupations?
Yeah, pay secrecy, while working 80-100 hours a week, for a contractor for the US, I was paid $2/hr less, than the 5 individuals I supervised (4 females 1 male) for around 2 and a half years (I was not only the most senior in my unit, I was the most senior in my department, over current managers) until I realized what was happening and threatened to leave. They were paying new hires, 2 dollars an hour more than the person they had supervising the unit, who'd worked there for 5 years. Even still, my pay was lower ($3 dollars lower/hour) than that of the previous supervisor, who was a female. This was an office dominated by women (probably 95%), and all managerial positions were held by women.
This is merely anecdotal evidence, for my own life, and one particular job.
Both Christine Hoff Sommers, and Claudia Goldin (First woman to gain tenure in the Harvard Economics Dept) suggest the gap is lower than even you suggest in your video. Might be worth talking to them, since they've done extensive research on the matter as well.
Brian Murphy. It sounds like you were discriminated against based on your gender. People in power often reward those they associate with, or identify with, rather than those more deserving, and are more suspicious of those that don't fall into the same category as them. This is why what happened to you happens more often to women and minorities, as the 'power holders' are typically white men. I don't want to belittle your experience and I'm sorry you were underpaid. I hope you aren't embittered towards women in general because of specific women treating you as men have treated women and minorities. I don't believe in the trend of punishing men for the bigotry of those that came before them, and I hope you now have a job where you are fairly paid and appreciated.
@@amyworks8621 Correlation does not imply causation. Without due proof or studies I would just really, really, really hope you didn't state "men in power" follow this same corrupted viewpoint of siding for the people most like them.
The mere fact that their seniority didn't stop someone under them, a fellow male, from getting paid more than them indicates this was overall an issue beyond discriminating blindly on the other sex. And it still isn't something you should use to point fingers without actual, factual grounding.
You found the corrected wage gap to be around 89% to 91%? That's the lowest figure I've heard to date. Most research papers have the wage gap somewhere between 93% to 97% and that's without factoring pay raises.
+Afro Samurai I've heard 94-96%, which leaves roughly 5% that is easily explained by salary negotiations. Men do it, women don't, and that extra 5% is just the right amount of wiggle to push for in an interview.
+Josh Edrington women penalized for doing, me aren't.
at least is demonstrable that they are penalized less then women.
@@jdedrington , except that's actually bollocks. Here in Australia, there was research done recently that tested whether men and women asked for pay rises at the same or different rates and it was found they actually do make requests at the same rate but women were rejected more often and they were actually viewed more negatively for asking in the first place. I don't know for sure but I doubt that America is all that different to Australia in that regard. After all, there are plenty of people here in Australia who make the same argument you do, so it's rather likely that you are just as wrong as they are.
Where are you hearing 89-91%? Because I have always heard numbers between the low 70s and mid-80s. Maybe in specific fields the gap is on the order you cite, but taking the entire US?
I find davids intelligence so atttactive ❤
The people/publications that call it a "wage gap" are specifically trying to convince people that women are oppressed by men. If they were being honest, they would call it an income gap.
More importantly, it doesn't need to be fixed. The fact that women and men tend to gravitate towards fields that suit their interests is the sign of a free society. Here in the west, we value freedom of opportunity over numerical equality in all fields. That kind of enforced 50/50 gender split is something that would be more appropriate in a Marxist or communist society.
Uploaded 3 minutes ago, 15 minute video already 1 dislike.
Lets play " spot the tumblerette"
+Marky Marc It's the evil antisemitic/republican agenda in action!
Haters gotta hate
Hi from the future
You're really downplaying the effects of personal choices made by individuals. What we have is not a pay gap between men and women, but between mothers and non-mothers.
We *know* that men and women make different decisions and prioritize their careers differently. We *know* that women, generally, choose jobs with more flexibility, lower recurring-education requirements, and less personal risk. *Women*, in large numbers, choose jobs that give them the flexibility down the road to potentially start a family, strong interpersonal relationship potential (such as teaching, child-care, veterinary medicine, or nursing), or general personal satisfaction and fulfillment.
You talk about education and the fact that women are earning more college degrees, but you missed the mark here. Women are between 60 and 65% of college grads, this is true. However, women primarily populate fields such as general nursing, social sciences, teaching, and veterinary medicine. They populate fields that a lot of people want to work in, which creates *more* competition and drives down wages in that field.
In contrast, men generally choose careers with the highest earning potential. Men choose educations with specializations, such as advanced medical degrees or applied mathematics, science, chemistry, and technology. Men choose specializations in careers that are in demand, difficult to earn, and difficult to maintain. On the other side of the spectrum, men also choose the careers with high pay, low education requirements, that are exceptionally physically demanding. Examples include steel work, construction, mining, sanitation. These are the jobs with the highest injury and fatality rates.
What we see is not a discrimination between men and women. It isn't a "gendered" pay gap. We are seeing the end result of a lot of people making decisions to balance their work and home lives. Yes, men generally double down on their careers when the baby comes along. You didn't really seem to understand or express why--it's because the woman is removed from the work force anywhere from 12 weeks to several years. It isn't just job experience that drives your personal wage up, but also uninterrupted time in the work force (we call this expertise). Again, this is the result of a personal decision, and some families work the other way, with the woman doubling down and the man being a stay-at-home father.
Really great points.
+Amber Amber not really when they are talking about an algorithm that matches work for work and experience and experience.
David is like the most honest reporter... But still not honest....
infact , I mean should single fathers count as women then ? and women who are not mothers count as men ?
Women aren't generally as assertive as men, they wouldn't be as likely to force themselves into a higher pay-grade.
Good job taking a nuanced approach and remaining as unbiased as possible. As always, the reality is much more complicated. Like the great American philosopher John Dewey once suggested, where there are dichotomies, the corresponding reality will often be somewhere in between (paraphrasing/summarizing).
+Kevin Durden It was a decent try, but a failure. No ribbons for trying.
+Gene Starwind A failure by what metric? David took a nuanced view of the topic, and came to a conclusion which was based off of the best available evidence.
godXofXpath That's why he failed. He was more concerned with being 'nuanced' than actually finding out the truth. Not ever issue is 50/50, like Climate change for instance.
+Gene Starwind I really don't think he was particularly concerned with argumentative parity. David went to great lengths to the evaluate the evidence, and came to an evidence-based conclusion. Nuance alone does not mean false equivalency. To unfairly equate two augments is to necessarily disregard at least some of the evidence, but David did not do that. David was primarily concerned with evaluating the best possible evidence to come to a conclusion, not with maintaining false parity.
godXofXpath I haven't seen anyone else come to the conclusion that the gap is anywhere near as a high as 11 cents. He also didn't make mention of the fact that the gap has reversed for young women and men. There are a lot of omissions from this piece.
Heck, even feminist argue it's like 7 cents.
Frankly, other people, like Sargon have done a far better job presenting the facts.
What about the 'death in the workplace' gap?
No, that does not matter, since it is MEN who are getting the shitty end of the stick in THAT example.
+ExBruinsFan
That also leads into danger pay.
Now heres the Swedish feminist solution, we force those men not too work when they have a kid to make some average numbers equal, or we ban danger pay, or we force women to work in dangerous jobs.
Gotta get that stupid irrelevant number equal.
These men voluntarily take these positions and they get paid handsomely for it
Very well said, sir. This female-primary-household-breadwinner thanks you.
I think it's a strawman argument to say that people claim there is absolutely no pay gap.
David at 5:53 could you point out which degrees men lead in vs. women?
+SuperJBrowne Men lead in STEM degrees. Women lead in Psychology PhDs and social work degrees.
+SuperJBrowne You are dead on it. He glossed over an important difference here. He seems to want to expose bs statistics, but he can't bring himself to go all the way.
*****
It also accounts for the wage gap, which was my point.
@@YogGroove Not a good argument. He talked about societal pressures and norms that direct women towards lower-paying jobs in the first place, and STEM is one of those. It's rapidly changing, but your point is not sufficient explanation for why the overall economically evidenced gap is there.
You can say all you want about not enough statistics are being taken into account, but then you're just distracting everyone into looking for stats to justify what we already know, which is that in aggregate, the gap is there, and it's bolstered by a lot of job and sociological data that already HAS been gathered, that we ALREADY know about.
@@SurelyYewJest u r forgetting one thing that women who remain single n childless outearn men by 4 cents per $
The BBC in the UK (hardly a bastion of right wing views) found that women into their 30's working full time earn slightly MORE than their male counterparts.
So women's salaries are impacted when they decide to have children and effectively take a different path regarding their life choices.
For this and many other reasons that have been explained over and over and over again the literal gender pay gap may be real but there is nothing unfair about it.
The pay gap exists, but not due to gender discrmination.
Correction. The *earnings* gap exist. It is illegal to not pay men and women equally thanks to the Equal Pay Act.
+BlackWarGreymon Yup, that's the important bit - it's not a PAY gap, it's not a WAGE gap, it's an *earnings* gap dammit
Because no one ever breaks the law! Wage theft is also illegal but quite commonplace. Same with racial discrimination. The evidence shows that some gender discrimination is going on.
Saying there is no discrimination is neckbearded MRA bullshit just like crazy RadFems attribute EVERYTHING to sexism.
Two words: Free Will. The women choose to want jobs that are flexible. Honestly. If their jobs were so important to them that it trumped their wanting to spend time with their kids, then they could send them to child care, or get them a helper, like my mother does. The fact that they want to be with their kids more while the dads are the ones who tend to be the career focused ones is nothing to slight them for, but it doesn't mean that the world and the law needs to bend to the delicate sensibilities of feminists who will scream "MUH OPPRESSION!" at everything they don't like.
*The fact of the matter is that when you look at the big picture, women generally do not want the same job types as men. Far more men go into STEM jobs like engineering, mathematics, science, and technology. Those jobs pay way more. As a result, when you look at the total amount of money earned between men and women, men make more. But when you account for the differences in job types and education, the wage gap vanishes to a much smaller amount (5 center per dollar - not the 23 cents claimed). To illustrate this point further, white people only make 86 cents for every dollar that an Asian person makes. The reason is not because there is some discrimination going on. It is the exact same reason that men make more than women, as a whole. This is because even more Asians go into STEM jobs than average Caucasians. Wage gaps really have very little to do with discrimination. It just so happens that women, for whatever reason, do not choose to go into higher paying jobs, and do not choose to work as much overtime, etc. And it just so happens that Asians go into high paying jobs even more. That is why whites make 86 cents for every dollar than an Asian makes. And that is why women make 77 cents per dollar that men make. It's just looking at the total amount of money that a group makes. It is not accounting for differences in what types of jobs different groups go into, it does not account for voluntary overtime differences, and it does not take into account educational differences, etc. It's only looking at the total income of men versus women - and this produces a very misleading result.*
Did you watch all of the video? he addresses all of these points...
It's not that women do not want them, per se, but that they are pushed into certain fields by societal pressure.
A lot of talk about unconscious bias, which is at least a step up from the unwarranted accusations of systemic racism and sexism. However let's keep it real: Bias applies outside of race and gender. In fact, there are biases far worse than those. I'll list a few qualities below that are as likely or more likely to cause bias than race or gender:
- Lack of height (for men)
- Baldness
- Physical deformities (ex. cleft chin)
- Uglyness
- Perceived lack of wealth
- Social conditions (ex. Asbergers)
- High-pitched voices (for men)
- Obesity
Someone who can be described by any of these qualities would be on average more discriminated against than someone like Larry Elder or Emma Watson. Yes, there is bias based on race and gender. It is not near the top of the list though. Does anyone disagree that a short, balding, ugly, white male with a high-pitched voice will have significantly more bias against him than the average female or average black guy? Why then do we not focus on how much more these factors play a role? My guess is identity politics. It doesn't fuel the victim narrative in the same way.
In terms of my source: That list of biases is paraphrased from a Morgan Freeman narrated documentary I saw on unconscious biases. The program is called "Through the Wormhole", but I cannot remember the particular episode name. Looking through the list of episode descriptions would likely yield the result if you're interested.
I love these kinds of videos. Keep it Pakmayne.
1) Alimony not considered earnings
2) under reporting of earnings of hookers, strippers, beauty salon workers, and waitresses....
Can these factors be included in the equating of earnings.?
How many young female students report gifts and housing from their sugar daddys?
You brought up the point that women get more degrees than men, but you failed to mention the kinds of degrees that women end up getting, which is very important. A degree in Social Work will not lead to as much pay as a degree in Petroleum Engineering. It also would have been beneficial to mention that the wage gap among milennials is much lower and women even earn more than men right out of college. Also most of the studies I have seen say that the wage gap shrinks to 4-8% so I'm dubious about your 9-11% statement. Not saying you're wrong based on whatever you read just that disparities like this are why this is a difficult thing to talk about.
An employee who is willing and able to work longer, more flexible hours will, of course, be of more value to an employer. I don't understand why anyone objects to that.
You are missing one important thing. Divorced women with kids that get child support and live with another man . They are every managers/bosses nightmare. They have 3 sources of income. So they miss a lot of work and that work/job is far less important to them than somebody with only one source of income. This phenomenon is never talked about nor researched. Also child support is not counted as income .
If car insurance companies get to charge men more because they're more likely to get into an accident, why wouldn't employers pay women less because they're more likely to prioritize family?
David, thank you for a well researched and cogently argued video on this very heated subject. Keep it up, brother!
Why does it always seem like normal people know more about this shit than the politicians do?
Anyone who works knows 77 cents is bullshit. My female colleagues throughout my life have made as much as I have - or more. The gap exists in a tiny amount, and mostly in the older generation still feeling effects of true sexism. However, now it is all but nonexistent. Women, however, tend to take more time off due to pregnancy/maternity leave or choosing to work less hours to take care of children.
My wife and I are a perfect example. We work in similar fields, and she actually makes more than me per hour, YET, since the birth of our child she took a lot of time off with our baby and subsequently has worked part time for several years since. So, looking at our gross incomes, it would appear she is being paid less than me for the same work. But she's not working full time like me, she and I chose that she work part time to help raise our child. She earns more than me per hour but takes home less annually. It's not a pay gap in our case, and the case with the vast majority of people.
And I will add, because of less time put into her company, her ability to justify raises goes down as well because she has been at the company less time. So that sets them back for the rest of her life.
There is also no pink tax.
Nobody is disregarding half the work force. It has been illegal since the 60's to pay men more than women for the same job.
Right, because making something illegal stops it from ever happening.
clown
Nobody is murdering people it's been illegal in every state before they united and then at the federal level since the 1790's.
From the US Bureau of Labor Statistics:
In 2014, employed people worked an average of 7.8 hours on the days they worked. More hours were worked, on average, on weekdays than on weekend days-8.1 hours compared with 5.7 hours. On the days they worked, employed men worked 52 minutes more than employed women. This difference partly reflects women's greater likelihood of working part time. However, even among full-time workers (those usually working 35 hours or more per week), men worked longer than women-8.4 hours compared with 7.8 hours.
Thunderfoot destroyed these arguments two years ago.
+Franz Yama Well that just makes tf00ts arguments more scientific, despite the fact David has a degree in economics making him more qualified to understand the study of this issue.
Here's the thing, when people say there isn't a pay gap (as you've shown it's down to less than 10% and the remainder is due to child care that forces you to focus less on work. You can argue over whether or not it's fair and what can be done about it, but that's just the market correcting itself) they usually follow it up with "there's a earnings gap". But that gap is not an issue, it's just the free market working as intended.
I think we should talk about the Gender Work Gap where men are forced by societal pressures to devote more of their lives to work, often harder and more dangerous work. This obviously leads to the Gender Life-Span Gap where men die younger than women.
There is good reason to believe that the pay gap is less than 9-11%. The CONSAD study comissioned by the US Dept of Labor found the gap to be 4-7% accounting for a large - but not exhaustive - range of factors. Even the American Ass'n of University Women found it to be 7%, accounting for many factors, but fewer than CONSAD. Here are a range of relevant factors (most, though not all of which were factored in by CONSAD; NOTE: CONSAD even said that the gap could have gone to zero if all factors were included):
1. Hours worked - men work more hours per week, even among only full-time workers;
2. Weeks worked per year - men work more;
3. Years worked - men retire later;
4. Educational and career paths - Men more likely to go into higher income fields such as trades, engineering, etc. Even within specialties, men choose higher earning paths. For example, in med, men are more likely to become surgeons, women to become GPs and pediatricians;
5. Following from 4, men are more likely to work in fields that compensate less desirable, more strenuous, riskier work with higher compensation. Men are more likely to take jobs that put them in physical danger, that require well over 40 hrs a week, that require work in unpleasant conditions (e.g., inclement weather, remote locations - what is the female equivalent to working 100 hour weeks in the Northern Alberta tarsands hundreds of miles from home? There isn't one);
6. Men are more likely to relocate for work or commute further, thus expanding their net and increasing the chance of securing higher wages;
7. Men are more likely to work as non-salaried employees - such as contractors. These people will often get paid more per hour but will get less in terms of benefits and paid time off. Thus, they will appear to make more because other non-compensatory factors are not always considered by pay gap metrics;
8. Women disproportionately pursue careers offering work life balance - e.g., avoiding 45+ hrs/week, gravitating toward professions/jobs that allow for flex-time, work-from-home, and that offer more in the way of sick days, etc.
Then consider that research has found that men are more likely to negotiate their wages than women.
Lastly, consider motivations. Does anyone doubt that men, on average, are more driven to achieve high socio-economic status and income than women? A man and a woman will both be better off by being wealthy, but a man's mating prospects are closely linked to his job title/rank and income. A man also has more to lose if he really falls through the cracks - less charity available to him, more face lost in accepting such charity. Likewise, men and women both are better off to be good looking. But would any of us disagree that a woman will pay a bigger social price by gaining a bit of weight or not looking her best? If it doesn't surprise us that the average woman spends more time on her appearance, why should it surprise us if the average man is often willing to prioritize his income more highly than most women? A man will pay less of a reputational price for gaining 20 pounds, and a woman will pay less of reputational price for giving up 15% of her income in order to pursue a career in a field she is more interested in, or to be with her family.
Likewise, do any of us really think that as many men as women are willing to make serious career sacrifices for childrearing purposes?
Let's create equality of opportunity. Lets open more people's minds to the prospects of males and females going against tradition in how they allocate earning and family duties - IF it's what particular couples want to do. Lets permit equality and allow people to do things traditional of the other gender's role if it works for them. But lets not pretend that males and females, as classes, do not have different tendencies.
And as for some fields deemed "women's work" being devalued and underpaid, and the opposite happening to male dominated fields. Men's fields become male dominated because men are drawn to high earning professions and are willing to relocate, travel, take physical risk, work long hours, and work in uncomfortable situations to get that money. If someone were to offer comparable wages for cushy jobs with comfortable hours, who wouldn't want that job? Men and women would be pummeling the company with resumes. And then the employer would reduce the pay because they would know they could get an employee for less. But if the job was not cushy, did no have great hours, required relocation, and had other factors that reduced the number of ppl willing to do the job, they'd have to increase the pay. And men are more likely to take he bait of more money at the cost of such sacrifices.
+DeathBy Trolley
2 other factors, one on the side of the wage gap:
1. Women are more likely to be single parents because they get to choose whether or not to have a kid had accidentally, and are more likely to be awarded custody. This will impair their career performance. For men paying child support they now have even more incentive to work longer hours, etc., to make more money.
2. A factor that works against women - mentorship. I have heard of - and totally believe - that in STEM and related fields, women can have a harder time than men finding mentors to take them under their wing. I have no doubt that this will disfavour women. This would be a constructive thing to address.
David, I'm sure you're aware the argument of "women earn more degrees and have higher GPA's, therefore women should earn the same (or better) money" is just as simplistic as the 77 cents argument. You need to go more in-depth. The type of degree matters. Computer Science and Engineering specialties are going to net you a much higher salary than a Social Work or a Communications degree. Men naturally gravitate towards more technical areas while women are generally drawn to the liberal arts and humanities. If you look at the sex ratio of different engineering degrees at PayScale.com you would see it ranging anywhere from 80% male to 95% male, this even despite all the efforts made into trying to get women interested in STEM. Then compare and contrast with say, social work and the arts where the career options are neither great nor well paid the populous of these classes is overwhelmingly female. Just because women on average graduate with more degrees doesn't mean they are graduating with the right degrees.
The GPA argument is also highly misleading. Taking all the grades of all female students and dividing them to all the grades of all male students is not going to provide you with any in-depth understanding of either how capable or how hard working the students are. Deriving conclusions from such a statistic would be an example of some very poor sociological & economics research. Again, you need to look into the types of classes female students are taking vs male students. How academically rigorous the curriculum is. One would assume if such factors are being corrected for the GPA gender gap would most likely disappear.
He was talking the majority of the video about studys which take that in account. Same jobs and same qualification. They are not comparing gener study major with chemical engineer but 2 chemical engineers both the same work expierience.
Did you even watch the whole video? It was just a counter argument to " men are more intelligent than woman" or do you want to say thats true ?
@@stefan3388 well, research shows that men on average have higher and lower IQ's than woman.
@@henryriehl2058
Resources? I highly doubt it's the case when you take into account socio economic factors ..
@@stefan3388 do some research. However the difference is only by about 5 IQ points.
@@henryriehl2058
I'm not making stupid claims. I've done reaserch and did not find that.
Thanks for the good video. Glad to hear some level-headed and researched ideas about the pay gap.
David, it was truly painful to watch this video.
You did 'not' take the differences between the types of work far enough. For instance, take engineers. This is one area where feminists will point out that even in the field of engineering women are paid, on average, less than men. However, when you look closer still it turns out that men tend to go into different fields of engineering - like chemical - that pay more. It is a bit like an onion, the more you it peel away, the more the pay gap disappears.
The 'experts' - and many who have looked into this over the years - say that when one does 'proper' research, the pay gap is reduce to within the statistical margin of error!
Also, instead of using economic statistics , this point can also be made using history. For instance, in the 1950's the women's movement protested the then pay gap of 4/5 of what a man made. Notice how the woman's movement back then used the fraction 4/5 instead of what they use today - which is a percentage of somewhere around 80%.
This switch - from a fraction to a percentage - hides the fact that the pay gap has 'not' change much in 60 years. This is true even though laws have been passed and women have moved more, and more, into the work place.
So, how could this be?
It is because the pay gap wasn't due to 'discrimination' back in the 1950's when they protested the 4/5 pay gap - (however, it is true if you go back to WW2 or earlier.) This point is made 'clear' by the fact that the pay gap has 'not' changed much since the 1950's even though our 'laws' and 'culture' have changed considerably. What blinds people to this reality is bigoted feminist ideology and dishonest advocates providing misleading statistics for years.
David, you are clearly trying to be objective here, which is great, but you are still plainly influenced by feminist ideology - you no doubt have taken too many Gender Studies classes. As a result, you seem to accept rather easily, and without evidence, the assumption that employers and society are innately sexist. You never even seem to notice that you NEVER provided a single bit of evidence to support this underlying bigoted assumption in your video. Instead, all you did was dig a little deeper, and then you said: Ah, well there is still a 10% gap which must therefore be discrimination. No, you just did 'not' dig deep enough and then you gave into your 'bigoted' feminist bias.
What statistical evidence did you provide that supports your 10% assertion? NONE! And, if you had, I would have destroyed it here! But, of course, you didn't.
I suggest you listen to someone - I know, you know already - Dr. Christa Hoff Sommers who dissects this faulty feminist advocacy research. By the way, these feminist advocates are 'Post-Modern' frauds who have already been exposed as charlatans - i.e, the "Sokal Affair." I also 'strongly' suggest you look into "Post-Modernism" and the current academic stalemate often called the "Science Wars." As it is highly relevant to this topic. I also suggest that you read Dr. Stephen HIcks book "Explaining Post-Modernism" - particularly the last two chapters.
I hope you stay verdant in regards to this issue, because you're WRONG!
Take care,
+Gedanken Preach brother. (I meant that in a good sense)
+Zubac twelve Thanks bro! Hey, do you know what a "Link Comment" is? I looked it up, but I'm not sure I understand.
+Gedanken also that in seed study he mentioned is bullshit because he didnt even talk about the occupation their looking if you look at modeling or nursing you'll find men to be under represented if you look at welding or firefighting women are going to be under represented
www.healthleadersmedia.com/nurse-leaders/men-still-woefully-underrepresented-nursing
www.nursingtimes.net/student-nt/do-men-still-face-stigma-when-choosing-nursing-as-a-profession/5069150.fullarticle
journals.lww.com/nursingmanagement/abstract/1998/10000/nursing_a_fine_line__patient_privacy_and_sex.20.aspx
www.goodtherapy.org/blog/men-underrepresented-psychological-research-studies/
www.professionalnursing.org/article/S8755-7223%2810%2900146-8/abstract
www.aacn.nche.edu/media-relations/fact-sheets/enhancing-diversity
so cut the crap
***** Thanks for the response, but I didn't understand. Can you clarify your point?
Well said, I could not have said it better myself (my typist is on maternity leave) (joke).
This video is basically calling biology sexist.
But what college degrees are they earning?
+kingBenTheBadger gender studies.....aka completely useless
+kingBenTheBadger That's what I thought. He prefers to skip over that minor detail.
+kingBenTheBadger Didn't he say the same degrees? Right in the video. Try a replay.
AmaranteStryfe How about you replay and comment the time when he says it.
Jaqen H'ghar You're that damned lazy hell no you're not worth the work.
People are forgetting that pay discrimination due to someone's race or gender is illegal. Women also have the option to sue the business their working at if they are being discriminated against.
You see, this is EXACTLY what CH Sommers is talking about when she says that false statistics are not going to help women. When people spout off about the 23 cent pay-gap, you can almost see the internet itself splitting in two as two separate groups of people turn their backs to each other and stop listening to anything the other side has to say. However, when you acnowledge all of the mitigating factors and drive in that a 23 cent pay-gap does not exist and begin narrowing in on the real number (about 7 to 10 cents,) then you actually start to engage the other side of the table and get some real discussion started.
Very well researched and presented.
One thing that I think is important is women appear to have less of an inclination to jump into high paying fields like Computer Science. Sure they get more degree's but the most popular degrees these days aren't high paying or high demand.
I teach programming and I tell you at the high school level getting girls into a coding is extremely difficult. They just take no interest in it. At the middle school level and under it's not a problem at all. Some have taken drastic methods such as changing the names of Computer Science classes into something more appealing towards women.
The demand for female programmers is pretty damn high.
I'll tell you why. Our brains are different. And we hate programming, and even if we like it we probably aren't as skilled. There are exceptions, but the female brain does not have as refined abilities in that arena. My dad is an engineer and mechanic and my brother was an electronics geek. I loved watching them take things apart, fix them, talking about it. But there was always a point I stopped understanding them, no matter how much they explained. I can do most computer maintanence, I can build my own, take it apart to clean the fans. I don't truly know how it works. I can change my own oil. I still have to go to my dad when something actually breaks. I took shop twice. I can make a beautiful cutting board, but my guy friends took half the time and made decent ones, and my dad made our garage himself. He's never used a manual. I always use one.
We don't need women in tech unless they are just as good as the men. Not one more than that. It's just like the military. I know we are cut from different cloth. I'm fine with that. The low percentage is exactly what we should expect.
emurphy66 I disagree slightly.
I heard somewhere that men tend to do marginally better then women in Math. And such women go into fields that are more social, and don't have them sit behind a computer alone all day.
However in the 80s and prior there were a lot of female programmers. A lot of Atari games were made by women. And video games were marketed to both girls and boys.
After the video game crash though, when Ninendo came out with their home console for some reason they marketed only to boys. From then on the Computer = Boys relation just became standard.
I constantly hear young girls tell me "coding is for boys"
Disagree. Inclination was due to different training, and stereotypes that result in girls are discouraged from tech. It is disappearing.
@@xSwordLilyx "And we hate programming, and even if we like it we probably aren't as skilled" Wow wow can you please talk for yourself and not on behalf of the entire female population?? No we don't hate programming, we're not naturally less skilled in computers or math or anything else. I was always the best in math at school, I always loved computers and spent a lot more time talking about computers and video games with my male friends than about fashion and make up with girls. But yea, unsurprisingly, I was the only girl like that. Wanna know why? Because most of those other girls were socialized differently than me; they grew up with a very rigidly "girly" education (aka what parents think a girl should do or like), whereas I was free to do and like lots of things, "feminine" and "masculine" alike. My parents didn't worry that I would play with toy cars and playing cards just as much as I would play with dolls, or that I preferred playing strategy and action videogames rather than dress-up ones. I always loved math games and puzzles. Also, I spent part of my childhood in Belgium, where kids education is gender-neutral: boys and girls were encouraged to do exactly the same things, the same physical activities like racing, climbing, swimming... when I got back in my home country, there was a huge divide instead: during break for example, _all_ boys played football while _all_ the girls just sat there gossiping. It was super weird for me. The way we grow up as children and especially the type of activities and games we do, is what shapes our brain differently. This is what will make it harder or easier for us to get into different things. It also greatly influences future interests, which play a role as well.
I chose Psychology at uni for two reasons: I was interested in knowing more about the human mind, AND I was too intimidated to go into Computer Science because there were almost no girls. I was afraid I would feel out of place, uncomfortable, or even looked down upon by everyone. I bet many girls end up giving up those paths for the same reasons. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy: you start believing that if there's only boys, there _must_ be a reason, maybe it really _is_ a boy's thing and you will fail, so you give up on it and you end up reinforcing the stereotype yourself.
Recently though, I decided to try and learn programming by myself anyway; I found coding _extremely_ fun and rewarding, so I kept doing it on my own and in one year I was able to successfully code a couple of different types of games, and I never felt like there was a point where things started to feel out of reach for me or too hard because I'm a woman and my "female brain" is somewhat unfit for that kind of stuff. On the contrary, I continuously try to find more challenges to overcome and new things to try with programming because I genuinely enjoy it and I believe I'm pretty good at it. And when things get really hard, I just try harder. Also, I got to know many other female programmers online who are absolutely _great_ at coding and I guarantee you, there's absolutely no difference in competence between them and the guys.
I respect your personal experience, but that's just what it is: YOUR experience. Don't generalize it because it's kinda insulting when you try to convince others that all females can't be good at something just because _you_ couldn't.
I cannot believe how many politicians still use this stupid wage gap crap. This debunking of it needs to go mainstream.
+Jfreek5050 Politicians want votes, also from people who don't understand or are ignorant to the fact that it isn't real.
There is a small gap, but it's due to the choices women make. Not due to discrimination.
+Michael Smith www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/14/study-finds-surprisingly-that-women-are-favored-for-jobs-in-stem/ This what you meant?
+Gavin You must have commented before watching the video. This point is addressed in it, and choices only account for 25% of the gap.
+playgrrrr which leaves about 4% gaps. nothing what people claim
Mario Pendic Ye, it's far smaller than the talking point would have you believe
25% OF THE GAP (23%). god you people can't even do basic percentages.
you're an employer with an equal male and female applicant and can only hire one. the male wants to work his hardest for as many years as he can to rise as far as he can, hopefully ending as ceo. the female wants to work hard enough to provide for her family but not so hard that she'll be too absent as a mother and wife. she doesn't want to be ceo, and she'll take much more time off than the male after having a child. her productivity will go down over the years, as opposed to the male's, which will go up. is it discrimination to choose the male? really?
B Question: Was the potential of the role clearly communicated to both candidates? I can bet my bottom dollar it wasn't. This is why women are often passed up for future promotion at the jump. Assuming that the Woman wouldn't work as hard, would be unwilling to put in the time and isn't motivated or ambitious enough for top job. Heck, a woman can be discriminated against before even setting foot into the interview room, simply because she is of reproductive age with the possibility of getting pregnant at any time and the employer doesn't want to deal with any of that ie the interruptions, the accommodation. I don't get it. why don't they just hire robots instead of problematic humans!?
I was really looking forward to this piece but to be honest I'm pretty disappointed by it. David used "university degrees" synonymously with "job qualifications" which is obviously an erroneous point to try and make. He also made no mention of the higher paying STEM jobs and the enormous difference between male and female graduates in those fields. I think those are two key things that were overlooked in this video.
Zebarbas
Agreed. I think all this data also serves as kind of an indictment on higher education being broadly considered the key to getting a good career. We see all these women loading up on useless BAs that don't get them anywhere and think "look at all these poor hard working university educated women being shut out of the job market due to discrimination" when we should be thinking "look at how useless these BAs that everyone is getting are".
+sausagemcbean The straight-out-of-college unemployment and underemployment rates have been going up steadily for a while now. I think this is similarly reflective of the trouble with higher education as it now stands. It's also a shame how little attention this issue gets with the media in general. I'd like to see David weigh in on this.
godXofXpath
Progressives never have anything constructive to say about college age underemployment. For them the conversation usually begins and ends with student debt and raising the minimum wage. I've never heard any contributions to the question of why so many young people can't find quality jobs other than "greedy banksters ruined the economy".
sausagemcbean Yeah, I'd like to see someone address the structural deficiencies which may be leading to this. Student loan debt, the minimum wage. and corporate banking greed/fraudulence all seem remarkably more like symptoms than the actual problem to me.
That being said, David tends to adhere to the best evidence- like his gamergate coverage. Most other "progressives" I heard talking about the issue fell handily into supporting the "it's just misogyny" camp, whereas David made an effort to put equally hard questions to both sides of the debate and maintain a rigorously objective attitude.
godXofXpath
I agree. I definitely wouldn't consider myself to be a progressive, but David is by far the most rational and level headed progressive YT political commentator and I generally enjoy hearing what he has to say.
Love it! This is the most educational and comprehensive video on the pay gap topic without the annoying rants on how feminists ruin lives.
+RosieVintage Of course it is. The confirmation bias is really comforting isn't it ?
If women make less and companies want money, the why aren't only women working.
+Guilles19 Apparently we just hate women that much...
+gantmj Well, you know.
+Michael Smith Whoa, I'm just setting the example of an office job, and women are also good blue color workers.
+Michael Smith I'm not denying the existence of corporate maternity leave.
+futurestoryteller Those are just examples of roles of women and their necessities.
I'm a male and I work 55-60 hours per week. I'm supervisor where I work. My Wife only works about 35 hours per week at her full time job. She chooses to work less, bc she chooses to to take a lot of time off.
We have no kids.
Hey David, could i ask for the list of references you used?
+Solomon Martin [edit] I'm a dolt: watch from 10:00 onward, there's a literal litany of studies, experts, and evidence David basically just lists. Ends at around 12:00 when he begins talking about potential legislation.
You also need to take into account the generational gender pay gap. Among millennials, there is almost no gender pay gap and it's narrowing over all. www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2014/beyond-bls/millennials-and-the-pay-gap.htm
I theorize this has to do with that the women of older generations, when they were first entering the labor force did have discrimination in the workplace, were not educated as well, etc back then. So over all, they started lower and have a harder time to make up for it even today. Once the older generations die off, I do believe the gender pay gap will be basically gone.
A lot of people seem to think women are being paid less because of discrimination, but I am skeptical of that since it's 2016 and anyone who does that would have a law suit. I don't think women do earn less except for the older generations, and that's because women once were discriminated against, and they were once more wanting to take time off for family whereas the millennial generation, of which the ones who have children, are less likely to take time off for family.
In my opinion due to my calculations and statistics there is a 4-6% gap due to sexism.
+Tyrone Biggums
its only sexism to be because you think woman are bad at negotiations. That's sexism on your part.
+Tyrone Biggums wouldn't it be more honest to say that 4-6% is unknown factors?
+Zev Hoover yup
Tyrone Biggums just curious, what controlling factors did you use to come to that number?
Amazing, many people posting about all the things that adjust the pay gap towards men, until the pay gap vanishes.
Not a single thing goes the other way.
"We need to adjust because women choose lesser paying jobs"
"We need to adjust because men are forced lesser paying jobs"
Both adjust happen in the same direction, because people have been tricked by the words "forced and choose", but told they are doing math.
Myth upon myth upon myth demonstrated in this thread.
"Businesses would just choose the cheaper".
Yes yes.... that's why key interview skills include eye contact, a firm handshake, and a well made suit. Because we're absolute meritocracies that have no biases. Every study shows massive hiring discrepancies for women and minorities with identical qualifications. The name at the top of the paper massively skews callbacks on CVs.
Then there are the performance issues. Whilst the libertarian brigade are out in force today saying "There is no pay gap", there is the other part of the brigade out today too saying "They did it to themselves", and the other other part saying "They must be objectively worse".
Pay attention to that.
Some of your fellows are out in force saying they can't carry as much, so must be worse programmers. Some of those people are going to be hiring programmers. Remember the meritocracy line from earlier? You can watch it not be true in your own community.
That's just the stuff I shouldn't have to explain before we even get to the parts that do.
Generally speaking you can name many factors in any complex system. It's very easy to pick your favourite 10 and have them point away from the simplified rule. If you're not looking at all the factors though, you're not doing any work that is intellectually worthwhile.
You're just fooling yourself to not have to adjust your ideology.
i would take issue with your use of the words "fair" and "unfair"
Facts aren't open for debate.
if you contend that 'fair' is an irrefutable, objective and definable quantity - then you never had any interest in hearing anything other than your own voice
+Ultimaton100
Yes because a subjective judgement is a fact, holy shit I hate political ideologues.
Absolutely LOVING these longer in depth episodes.
I'm gonna reserve my judgement on the things said here until I can research them more myself.
But I just wanted to say thanks for actually even doing a piece on this!
Kudos.
It's not discrimination. If a man stayed at home, instead of the woman, the man would have less pay.
@4:50, Care to list what the "controls and restraints" are? ... because I don't see any documentation, and most of the time when I see this sort of "the gender pay gap is still 90 - 95 with 'corrected factor' data" claim, the claim almost never includes anywhere close to the 37 factors that Warren Farrell lists in "Why Men Earn More" (one of the best sources from the 'wage gap is a myth' side). Instead, its usually acknowledging 2 or 3 factors and calling it a day. In other words, to make a valid claim, PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT'S IN YOUR CLAIM. How are you coming to that number? And if you left out some of the 37 factors claimed by the "there is no wage gap crown" why did you leave them out?
Don't just gloss over this. If this channel is about anti-regressivism and having discussions based on facts, then do like school and SHOW YOUR WORK. Otherwise, frankly, you don't have a legit leg to stand on. Come on Pakman. I know you can do better than this. Please upload your work or make another video about it.
Great piece, David. The nuanced approach you took to this issue is really a refreshing change from the simplistic arguments made whenever this issue is debated.
I don't entirely agree but it is nice to see someone discussing this with reason and looking for evidence. The Young Turks'd probably spend 40 minutes screaming "MISOGUYNHNY"
I agree.
+Sur Bluh With millionaire Cenk sitting on his fat ass talking about patriarchy, with his hot secretary Ana purring at his feet.
+Sur Bluh what is there not to agree about. the orchestra statistic was pretty damning.
It depends on how the research was conducted. I haven't looked into the study but the way it was set up suggests there was a foregone conclusion, which means there could have been a confirmation bias or skewed results somehow.
EgalitarianismPlus women were hired 50 percent more often, when the people in charge didnt know their gender vs when they did, and you dont think discrimination against women exists? what other reason could there be?
if you have nothing to deem it false, and havent even done the research why deny it, this affects alot o f women. is it possible just possible, that you dont want to acknowledge it because like white privilege it makes you feel uncomfortable to imagine something so unfair exist subconsciously in the minds of most people or are you purposefully trying to protect your privileged. im sorry if this is offensive but i find it hard to understand what it is that you have such a hard time accepting yet havent done the research to support these hunches. maybe...just maybe the bias is yours and not the other way around?
Since this phenomenon of paying women less for equal work exists so prominently in society, why not you list some examples of specific businesses that pay women less? This shouldn’t be difficult, right?
Although I appreciate that this video was less bombastic than most regarding this topic, it continues to perpetuate the myth that the primary cause of the earnings discrepancy between males and females is systemic sexism, This is in spite of the fact that no credible evidence has been presented to substantiate those assertions. It is somewhat telling that your opening montage included only two academics, both of whom are opponents of the myth.
Skeptics have exposed the flaws in methodology and analysis of every major Feminist study purporting to find a link between women's earnings and sexism. Although you noted in the video the "gap" decreases each time a new factor is discovered and adjusted for, gender ideologue (including those arguing for additional regulations in the montage) simply ignore the new results and continue pressing the 3rd wave (Neo) Feminist agenda.
What I find truly puzzling is why this information is being treated as breaking news. When the US Department of Labor released its 2009 study, it determined that the "gap" was between 4.8 and 7 percent, and a more recent 2014 study released by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) - certainly no friend to feminist critics - it concluded nearly the same findings. In addition, it suggested a possible explanation for the remaining deviation; men tend to negotiate their salaries, rather than accept a first offer. As we can see, the issue is extremely complex, and the more data we collect, the charges of sexism become less credible. Why then is the public continuously bombarded with the 77% figure? Could it be that they are not honestly interested in equality of opportunity, but rather their goal is for guaranteed outcome?
Theirs is a classic "God of the Gaps" argument (pun intended). The NeoFeminists spy a possible gender issue that cannot be explained on a bumper sticker, then immediately assume it must be that boogeyman collectively known as the "Patriarchy". Careful thought and reliable, repeatable scientific experimentation shows this simply not to be the case.
May i say thank you for this comment you are a very intelligent woman :)
ENiGMA
Thank you for the compliment; however, please note that my user name is not personal.
+Davita Veritas its not your real name? Thats fine :)
ENiGMA
Sorry, I should have been more clear. Just do not read too much into the name. It is meant only to imply a sentiment, and nothing more.
Thanks again.
Very nuanced video. Would very much appreciate a complete list of links to the studies mentioned in this video. Thanks.
The first thing you have to address when arguing the Gender 'Pay' gap is defining the difference between, pay and earn.
There's also a difference between qualified and experienced.
The other thing is you are paid to work and be productive, if you are not productive you should not get paid.
+David Pakman Show - 12:20 - If its actually in the ballpark of 9 or 10%, then it shouldn't take as long as those projections indicate, as they ground the current pay gap at 23%.
9:00 why is that unfair? Women seek more flexibility - companies seek more availability. It's a free market. You negotiate. The more the company moves towards your flexibility requests, the less money you will have to expect. The more you offer to comply with the companies requests, the more you can expect to be paid.
It's unfair that the expectation is that women handle family and therefore they are the ones who need flexible hours instead of flexibilty and family burdens being split up more equitabily
Kayla Marie Should that not be discussed within the family tho?? It isn't or at least shouldn't be a societal thing but a mutual agreement between partners
Chavez Harding
*It isn't or at least shouldn't be a societal thing but a mutual agreement between partners*
Wrong, it should definitely be a societal thing. The unpaid work women (or to a lesser degree men) do to raise children, care for the elderly, etc.... directly impacts societal health. It is literally what keeps society livable.
@raffingo: totally agree
Guess what? More and more people, men and women are seeking more balanced work lives. Employers need to understand they get better, happier, healthier, more productive employees if they have policies that encourage well being and personal time. Just showing up, and working long gruelling hours on salary doesn't mean it's effective. Employees are people, not robots.
The pay gap is not simply BECAUSE of gender. You must consider fields, positions, efficiency in that position, tenure,…
I feel that the majority of people who thumbed down this video, never bothered to actually watch it.
+Andrew Neumann I did watch the entire video and that is why I do not agree. For as far as I saw he forgot to mention the STEM fields, which play a very significant role in this. It has to do with study's women choose and he kind of glanced over it, but didn't go in depth on it.
Zubac twelve Even if the video is not a scholarly article, or something of the level of a thesis or dissertation, it still looks at the issue in a non biased and objective approach. By far, this is better than most people when commenting on this issue. In truth he also didn't touch that much upon the difference based on state, income levels and job areas as well as he should of. This of course changes percentage on the dollar in many ways. For me, the video clarified more on the points of how the issue is commented and argued in many situations, and by many people without using all the facts associated. A good video is one where it looks on a subject in a clear light, addresses the main points in a simple and understandable way, and opens discussion toward the subject. On those accounts, the video is at least passable, especially for what you'd expect for a RUclips channel.
I would not call the end "objective".
Zubac twelve Depends on what you consider is objective:
1. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
He used the facts that he researched, pointed out that the issue does exist, but is commonly poorly handled and either over exaggerated or flat out ignored.
At most, the only thing you can argue wasn't objective was him claiming that we should try to diminish this wage gap; however, that in and of itself doesn't outright signify bias in the creation of this video.
I basically meant the assumption, so we have not figured it out a 100%, sooo that is sexism. It is basically the god of the gaps the smaller the percentage gets they hang on even more to the small differences.
So women make the majority of collage graduates?
So what?
Men make up the majority of graduates in highpaying fields (engineering for example).
The way you summed it up at the end, just made me think two of the best ways to help this is: a) people need to stop having so many kids, and b) if you do have kids, you should stop getting divorced. Seems like that would help things, but of course, people want to keep procreating and leaving their partners. If women don't have kids, they can work on their career. And if they do have kids and stick with their husband, they wont be the primary bread winner.
+Transfiguration thought the same thing. with all the single mother households, what do you expect to get.
Obama did bush. Bush did kennedy. Kennedy did lincon.
Wow, David Parkman, a special kind of special kid
Pakman, I can't think of a lower priority than gender income inequality. It's silly, and you're silly for dignifying it. Let's focus on class inequality, you dunce. What's the worse that will happen by not giving women extra privileges? Just because it's harder for women not to have kids doesn't mean it's impossible. Why should companies pay people for life choices? Why shouldn't there be consequences for making impulsive investments as serious as creating new life on this dying planet?
How was experience and on job performance taken into account when determining the gender pay gap?
Also, when asking "is it fair to women that they have to spend more time with their children than working due to societal/biological pressures?" you could easily flip the scenario and say "is it fair that men have to spend more time working than with their children due to societal/biological pressures?" and say the system is biased against men.
I believe that women and men should be given equal opportunities to pursue careers and families and I also believe that women are naturally more likely to focused on family than men and vice versa for men and careers.
+Jorg Ancrath I think they are not naturally more focused on family than men, rather girls are taught (by their parents and the whole society) to be more family oriented and boys are taught they should rather play with cars etc. We tauch women from early on that they should focus on the home and family and men should bo more stoic, not care about babies as much as women. I've seen a lot of kids from gender neutral families enjoying playing with both dolls and cars, kids don't care if they're not told they should care.
As far as I'm concerned, the remaining gap when you control for every measurable difference in career choice is best explained by two issues:
1) Pay negotiations, which women have been shown to perform less well on consistently across decades of research.
2) Gender bias. Dozens upon dozens of studies in social psychology have found a consistent bias against women in male-dominated jobs: this bias is not the result of anyone consciously deciding to discriminate against women, but the result of a subtle cognitive bias that's born from internalization of stereotypes.
The gender pay gap is smaller than some activists make it out to be, but to claim that it doesn't exist altogether flies in the face of every single piece of evidence that exists.
An honest argument would claim that the gender pay gap is _smaller_ than 77 cents, not that it's nonexistent altogether.
+Zennistrad1
3. Women pick different types of companies to work for. You will often find companies that care more for their workers with higher percentages of women at the expense of salary. Vice versa you will find companies that focuses on salaries to usually be lower percentages then the industry average.
John Cobalt
That's also something to consider, but the thing to keep in mind is that when companies provide extra benefits their value is typically less than the reduction in wages that results from taking benefits.
Companies that "care more" for employees don't just pay less, they also compensate less.
Zennistrad1 Sure the value of the benefits is lower then the value would have been in raw salary but it usually also comes with a more lax atmosphere which is also highly valued by women in comparison to men.
I worked quite a few years as a HR consultant and this difference between men and women choices lead to the biggest difference in wages that I could find personally yet you can't "measure" it for studies such as these.
It was one big sausage party in all the computer science classes I took that led to my high paying career. Not one of the men in those classes was a chauvinist. They were more or less all keyboard white knights, and undateable losers. I knew my degree would lead to high pay. There weren't that many women in the business classes either. You know, the ones where they teach you to be the Boss, the Leader, the highest paid person in the business.
+SurvivalistMedia In one of my SE classes, we have 30 students, and 29 of us are male...
I think we've already got a solution, haven't we? When people want to start a family they have to decide amongst themselves how much each of them will be responsible for money-making, and how much each of them will be responsible for home-making. If you can't come up with a compromise, don't start a family with that person.
Yes, women are earning more college degrees, but the real question that this video didn't touch on is what degrees are they actually earning? Not all degrees are created equal. If we look at the table at 5:53 we can see a difference in degrees that men and women typically earn. For example, Arts and Humanities was 53.6% female, whereas Engineering was only 22.2% female. That is just one example. Most of the degrees that lead to high paying careers (due to supply and demand) were earned by men.
There are also MANY other reasons for the so-called "pay gap" (I prefer the term "earnings gap" myself. Women aren't PAID less; they EARN less) that this video didn't touch on. I suggest people read "Why Men Earn More" by Warren Farrell (former National Organization for Women board of directors member) where he outlines 25 different life choices people make, which have an effect on their earnings. Because men and women typically value different things, they inevitably make different life choices.
Here's a summary of his book:
www.warrenfarrell.net/Summary/
There are income gaps everywhere. Why is this an issue? This isn't some problem that needs to be fixed. Not all jobs pay the same nor should they, and people who work longer hours SHOULD be paid more. It's only fair. My friend is a doctor and she gets paid A LOT more than I do as an early childcare teacher. And so what? She absolutely SHOULD get paid more than me. We BOTH made CHOICES that led to me EARNING less than her. Personal choice is not oppression.
+PacificRimNZ I was actually just about to point out Dr Farrell's book. This right here is spot on. We are seeing the end result of a lot of individuals making choices based on what they value and prioritize. There isn't some enigmatic bogeyman lurking behind the curtain, manipulating everything.
There's no pay gap. I spoke with my coworkers and the only reason why I'm making more an hour is because of my attendance.
if women are payed less, why haven't all money hungry companies fire all men and hire women therefore saving money.
Here's another problem. I work a six figure salary job in healthcare. Most of my colleagues are women. I tend to invest my money in real estate and the stock market and drive an old, beat up car. My colleagues tend to spend all their money on clothes, fancy Euro vacations, high priced luxury apartment rental, BMW's, &c. They bleed money. Every time I ask one of my colleagues out on a date, they reject me, because they want a man that makes more than them. A lot of them do find higher earning men, get pregnant, drop out of the workforce, and continue to live their luxury lifestyle on their man's dime. If they think there is even a 10% chance they can win the lottery like this they won't settle for their equal. They're hardwired through evolution to seek men that have more assets than them; they are sexually turned on by those men by design.
Also because I make good money, I'm a target for every low earning, irresponsible woman that too wants to win the lottery after years of 'just having fun'. Women are going to have to do their part to close the pay gap.
David, you are doing it again.... You are trying to be so fair, that you end up being biased. Once all the factors are taken into consideration the pay gap is nowhere near 11 cents!
It's like having a climate change denier debate a legit climate scientist, and calling the debate fair. It's not fair, because it gives the illusion that each position has merits.
+Gene Starwind Upon what evidence do you base your claims. The David based all of his conclusions firmly in the best available evidence from the scientific literature- are you calling the scientific method biased? Isn't David's lack of bias apparent in that he rebukes claims made by BOTH sides of this issue?
***** If by "feminist papers" you mean "scientific, peer-reviewed papers" then yes, that is what he bases his evidence on. To write those off as a biased "pile of vomit" is to write off the scientific method and peer-review.
godXofXpath The peer review happens after it's published, and for social sciences it basically never happens anyways.
You can publish just about anything if you try.
There was one recently published in science, god knows how they pulled that off, that claimed women make 20% less than men on ebay, which they attributed to subconscious bias, despite the fact ebay doesn't show the seller's sex. The assumptions and conclusions were quite laughable!
Gene Starwind In order to secure a grant for research, most institutions require a peer-review board to okay the study, beforehand. Besides, what difference would it make if such studies were only peer-reviewed after their completion. If their results are erroneous, the peer-review board will not okay the publication of the study. What evidence do you have which supports the notion that peer-review "basically never happens anyways" in the social sciences? I am unaware of any such literature.
And while you really can publish whatever you want, it will not be in a peer-reviewed journal. Yes, there are "publications" which allow any author to publish anything so long as they pay a submission fee, but those are generally disregarded as they are not subject to peer-review, nor any other quality controls, for that matter. However, those are not the journals we're talking about. We're talking about well-regarded, peer-reviewed publications for which there is no good evidence that they are particularly compromised, in terms of bias or otherwise.
godXofXpath That crazy feminist that attacked a student in her safe space got a grant to go to a twilight convention.
Social sciences are a joke nowadays! You can't trust anything coming out of it in academia anymore
Read my post again, Science posted a bullshit article about women on ebay!.
Women earn less and at the same time spend more money then men...
Ssssssssh. Don't let this get out. We're trying to sell that women are oppressed.
+Stig Helmer In truth, men spend more money than women.
www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/11/25/who-spends-the-most-money.html
www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3246381/Do-men-like-shopping-women-New-survey-finds-males-spend-time-money-stores-female-counterparts.html
flower37075 The issue at hand is that women earn less then men but have the same or greater living quality then men. Even if the man is the official purchaser of a car you can be pretty sure that the wife is included in the decision making and she also benefits from the purchase.
Stig Helmer I am calling bullshit. Men buy more clothes than women. So how is a woman benefiting from a man being more clothes? Men buy more alcohol, more personal products, more entertainment, more food. It is and has always been about the men.
flower37075 Don't be silly. Women own more and spend more on clothes and personal products. I don't have numbers to support this but use the fact all female acquaintances, all stores and all experiences I've had consistently tell me that women spend more on clothes.
I've googled but cannot find sources of claims that men spend more then women. All links lead to marketing companies and gossip magazines etc. I encourage you to present an actual report demonstrating actual numbers.
I can pretty much tell what direction this video is going to take based on the like/dislike ratio.
Well done David. You are probably pissing off people with strong opinions on both sides. Keep it up!
It's interesting how the clips touting/perpetuating the wage gap were politicians and mainstream media...
Seems pretty obvious that this is perpetuated because it's an effective political tool...
+Patch Peterson Sadly even Bernie uses it
speculation as to why a gender pay gap exists is not evidence for discrimination. show me evidence that there is wide spread discrimination against women's pay, not just "oh it could be because of their gender, therefore it is".