I think in issues such as this, where the numbers seem to not in themselves stand up to any real scrutiny, there HAS to be explanations given.
What I mean to say is that there is a world of difference between the conversation around the following (hypothetical examples to follow)
"The average base wage for men and women is $60000 but men have consistently bought hone an average of $69000 due to greater voluntary overtime, danger money, shift allowance, remote location money, etc."
AND
"The average total gross pay between men and women is different by $9000 with women earning just $60000 and $69000"
Again, every made-up example you give involves women just doing the basics and men doing all kinds of extras. It's starting to sound pretty insulting. While your argument seems to be "there must be a rational explanation for everything". I'm sure causes can be identified in any case. That doesn't mean the cause will always be "men are working harder in some way". Your bias is massive.
That is exactly the message it seems and IF I don't swallow it and say "It really makes no sense that the employers systematically would expose themselves like that and in the event that they did, they would surely employ more women (perhaps to save for their legal fees). There has to be something wrong with what I am being fed as a unquestionable truth", then I am being told, "NO studies prove it beyond any reasonable doubt and are infallible".
Does this sound right to you?
No.
It is fine to expose yourself if you know the weight of the system is on your side. You seem to be assuming that corruption does not play a factor. So long as the courts are as dominated by gender imbalance as the workplace, there is little for rich CEO's who can afford expensive lawyers to worry about.
Courts do not favour men over women. If it were this simple a proposition then the crisis in the family courts for men would not be what it is. I am more than happy to entertain that there may be some employers that are wanting to stick their necks out and who are chauvinists and want to employ men over women. I am sure there may be a handful of employers out there like that. But that is not what you are trying to have me believe.
If I understand it, you would say that the employers would prefer to hire men and at a pay rate higher than what they could otherwise employ women and that this is systematic through the entire workforce and that this (though completely against the law) is not prosecuted against.
This is not and could not be a case of one or two bad eggs. You realise this. For the percentages to favour men across the whole of the Australian workforce at 15% it HAS to be so marked and so extreme as to be completely systematic.............OR wrong.
This is where I have come into it.
Now because trying to extrapolate possible causes I look for how figures could be misused to provide a higher result. I have to look not at motive, that is easily enough understood (even if there was not a massive agenda to support such results, looking beyond gross wage is a hard caper) but at what may be the difference between two pays a man and a woman IF they are paid the same as they are require to by law and IF there is a different gross wage.
I can tell you that the person who washes your windows in your office (from the outside), is ridiculously higher chance of being male and being paid highly being so. I can tell you that the percentages for men and women in oil rigs does not favour women and even the laundry staff there are paid phenomenal rates in comparison. I can tell you that the number of young men compared to young women attracted to work for higher wages in the mines is hugely favouring the men in applicants.
All of this may affect your sensibilities Pyraxis. You may feel that this is some slight against you. It is not. But tell me if what I wrote about these jobs is true or not. If it is true then tell me if you consider that comparing a oil rig laundry staff
http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/laundry-staff-on-420k-a-year/story-e6frfmci-1226027858419with any other laundry staff anywhere in metropolitan Australia and there will be a substantial difference. If the difference between men and women favour the man here in who is prepared to choose to work on the rig, then ANY head to head comparison as to who is paid more for laundry is going to on average favour the man.
I know that one example does not make 15% BUT if we stack up these example over and over then eventually we get to a stage where it makes sense. That is what I want because the alternative doesn't.
The problem is, IF I am right and IF what I said more readily accounts for the difference and it does simply come down to choices, there would not be the argument that women are underpaid in society still. Nor would it be that employers do not value women as much. That society is favouring men in employment. It would all come down to women are making choices that impact on the amount of take home income they receive. That is a harder thing to argue.
We could say "Hey if a women decides she wants to work part time because she wants to be able to pick up and drop off her children and spend time with them after work (as many do), maybe she feels a social pressure to do so that her husband doesn't", maybe that may be true. If we said that "A young bloke working remotely and getting paid higher money to do so is less less likely to attract young females because of perception of safety and such", this may or may not be true. But whilst these are debating points unto themselves, they do not quite have the "choicelessness" of "men are paid more than women".
Every job I have worked inI have as many do I guess expressly compared my pay rate and my earning with my closest colleagues and in every instance, I have had the same base rate where I have been in the same position as the women next to me. I have often done far more overtime and earned far more in commission BUT the base rate and the tax rate has always been identical.
I am looking for answers and explaining my proposition and my reasoning. You do not agree and that is obvious. You feel insulted and that was not my intent.
