Dodgy, sexist, wage data continues to be spouted by the Government

Mr_Mumble

The Office of National Statistics scolded Harriet Harman for using misleading statistics last month:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/06/womens_minister_used_misleadin.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/5506891/Harriet-Harman-in-latest-row-over-statistics.html

So guess what Harriet Harman's department does this month? Yup, repeats the same statistical lies. Take today's [strike]twaddle[/strike] news report from [STRIKE]pravda [/STRIKE] the BBC:

Gender pay gap 'not being closed'

"The Women and Work Commission, which was established to consider how to close the gender pay gap, said it had widened to 22.6% from 21.9% in 2007."

The pay gap, however you measure it, has fallen dramatically over the past decade (see ASHE report above, the median gap has gone from >20% in 1998 to <13% now). The BBC have just parroted the feminist government department who are using the same disgracefully biased, homogenic, spinning of the figures that Harman was scolded for only last month!

The government spin is simple: the pay mixes up part-time and full-time workers. An awful lot of women choose to work part-time and because of the female bias in part-time workers the pay gap jumps from the official 12.8% figure from the Office of National Statistics to the 20%+ made up by the "Women and Work Commission" (an offshoot of the Government Equalities Office).

The whole BBC report is a joke filled with left-wing vested-interesting spouting nonsense, those quoted are:
Baroness Margaret Prosser, chair of the commission
Equality Minister Harriet Harman
Anna Mann, senior partner at headhunters MWM Consulting and leader of the Women on Board initiative
Kat Banyard, campaigns officer of the Fawcett Society
TUC general secretary Brendan Barber
Andrea Murray the Acting Group Director of Strategy at the Equality and Human Rights Commission

:wall:

But what is the reality about pay?

The average part-time wage for a woman is higher than for a man in the UK! From the ONS's own figures, page 3 of 2008 ASHE (£7.51 for women vs £7.26 for men for those who don't want to open a pdf). How many people in the UK are in the least bit aware of this factoid?!

The most exacting empirical work on the gender pay gap done by the NBER (the economic group that decides the definition of business cycles, recessions and depressions in the US) puts the gender pay gap almost entirely down to a rather simple factor: the time women take out for having babies. As the 2005 NBER study states:

"There is no gender gap in wages among men and women with similar family roles. Comparing the wage gap between women and men ages 35-43 who have never married and never had a child, we find a small observed gap in favor of women, which becomes insignificant after accounting for differences in skills and job and workplace characteristics."

For the , natural, pay gap that does exist women are compensated through social security (maternity leave, child benefit and state pension benefits that don't take into account annuity rates).

I wasn't going write this, or the cc'ing that'll go to Sir Michael Scholar and the BBC Trust before reading Peston's pathetic sniping:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2009/07/why_men_are_to_blame_for_the_c.html

Considering it is men who are hurting most from this recession, (men are less likely to be in cushy public sector jobs with gold-plated pensions, pensions that do not get counted in the wage data, surprise!), Peston's remarks are in very bad taste.

Graham_Devon

There was the baroness on radio 5 this morning, with another lady later moaning they get treated worse than men for sick leave etc too. However, it was only when the man talked about maternity leave for men did she shutup and have nothing to say other than "thats the way it is".

misskool

I'll swap gender pay gaps if you want to swap the child bearing and child birth bit?

1) Women who have children choose to work part time because child care is so expensive, sometimes, they don't have a choice if their children have special needs

2) Women of a certain age (ie the childbearing years) are subconciously discriminated against by employers because you can see them counting the cost of maternity leave (regardless of whether they want to have them or not and now it's illegal to ask that during interviews)

3) Unless biology changes drastically in the next few years, it will be women who will have to take the time out to have children. If men could do the same, I'm sure there wouldn't be a pay gap.

Graham_Devon

misskool wrote: »

I'll swap gender pay gaps if you want to swap the child bearing and child birth bit?

1) Women who have children choose to work part time because child care is so expensive, sometimes, they don't have a choice if their children have special needs

2) Women of a certain age (ie the childbearing years) are subconciously discriminated against by employers because you can see them counting the cost of maternity leave (regardless of whether they want to have them or not and now it's illegal to ask that during interviews)

3) Unless biology changes drastically in the next few years, it will be women who will have to take the time out to have children. If men could do the same, I'm sure there wouldn't be a pay gap.

This isn't about Maternity. No one can do much about that biologically. However, men get the rough end of the stick here, yet don't see government departments set up for mens rights.

Men can look after the kids instead of the women. They do not "have" to stay at home with the kids.

It's all about choice.

misskool

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This isn't about Maternity. No one can do much about that biologically. However, men get the rough end of the stick here, yet don't see government departments set up for mens rights.

Men can look after the kids instead of the women. They do not "have" to stay at home with the kids.

It's all about choice.

Yes, and men should do that. I have seen men taking the brunt of the childcare with the woman being the main wage earner in the family.

Women are discriminated against something they can do nothing about, having a womb.

If women don't take time out and don't have children then they are on the same footing, is the point of the OP, right?

But then the human race would grind to a halt as there wouldn't be any more little humans.

michaels

Lets compare - if a man took 5 years out after the birth of his child until they started school and then returned to work should he be on the same salary and career point as his colleagues (male and female) who all have 5 years more experience - thought not?

But if a woman does the same she should be by default?

misskool wrote: »

Yes, and men should do that. I have seen men taking the brunt of the childcare with the woman being the main wage earner in the family.

Women are discriminated against something they can do nothing about, having a womb.

If women don't take time out and don't have children then they are on the same footing, is the point of the OP, right?

But then the human race would grind to a halt as there wouldn't be any more little humans.

vivatifosi

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

Gender pay gap 'not being closed'

"The Women and Work Commission, which was established to consider how to close the gender pay gap, said it had widened to 22.6% from 21.9% in 2007."

The pay gap, however you measure it, has fallen dramatically over the past decade (see ASHE report above, the median gap has gone from >20% in 1998 to <13% now). The BBC have just parroted the feminist government department who are using the same disgracefully biased, homogenic, spinning of the figures that Harman was scolded for only last month!

The government spin is simple: the pay mixes up part-time and full-time workers. An awful lot of women choose to work part-time and because of the female bias in part-time workers the pay gap jumps from the official 12.8% figure from the Office of National Statistics to the 20%+ made up by the "Women and Work Commission" (an offshoot of the Government Equalities Office).

As a woman I come at this from a different angle to you Mr Mumble, but reach the same conclusion. I don't think that it helps the cause of women for salary gaps to be seen as wider than they actually are, as there are sexist bosses out there that will try and reinforce that. However I can't for one minute believe that anyone can take the BBC seriously on the issue of sexism. You only have to look at the older women presenters debacle that it is currently mired in to see why it is hardly in a fit state to pass comment.

lostinrates

FWIW as a woman I feel different but not unequal (although maybe I'd feel different still in the workplace)

Difference means that we have to have the kids, as misskool points out, but it also means we CAN have the kids (generally speaking). Men lose out there, some might argue.

I also have to say that I do feel for employers in SOME situations with maternity leave etc. (not that I think in any way shape or form it should be available to a lesser degree) and I think sometimes women, not men, in the work place make things harder for themselves/their female colleagues.

bluey890

lostinrates wrote: »

FWIW as a woman I feel different but not unequal (although maybe I'd feel different still in the workplace)

Difference means that we have to have the kids, as misskool points out, but it also means we CAN have the kids (generally speaking). Men lose out there, some might argue.

I also have to say that I do feel for employers in SOME situations with maternity leave etc. (not that I think in any way shape or form it should be available to a lesser degree) and I think sometimes women, not men, in the work place make things harder for themselves/their female colleagues.

BBC news always bring out the same horrible female to criticize maternity benefits (and women in general).

Mr_Mumble

Thought I'd come back to some backlash from the fairer sex but instead there's only thoughtful comments. .

misskool wrote:

2) Women of a certain age (ie the childbearing years) are subconciously discriminated against by employers because you can see them counting the cost of maternity leave (regardless of whether they want to have them or not and now it's illegal to ask that during interviews)

Fair enough, that's a very difficult conundrum - I don't think its particularly subconscious either especially in small businesses where a key member of staff is being appointed.