ONS finds young men now earn less than young women

breaking_free

Johnnytwostep wrote: »

I assume all feminists are single.

asajj

epm-84 wrote: »

I didn't quote the whole article because a lot of it is political spin. The only useful information in the second quote effectively repeats what is in the original post.

The ONS is a government department so presumably have all the details of employees paying tax. The CMI is a private organisation which will only likely to have salary details of people who choose to let them know what their salaries are in response to a survey, so like you said in your own post statistics are not always very representative, which is likely to be especially true of the CMI ones. The CMI stats are effectively equivalent to a pre-election poll in one county and the ONS ones are equivalent to actual polling day votes across the whole country.

Not all government departments will have the details of employees paying tax. I haven't referred to the CMI stats at all. So no point trying to prove them wrong.
You are still missing the point, for above 30s, the gender pay gap does exists. I also work in industry and witness from the 1st hand that there is a gap. That was what TTT referred too , I believe.

JJG

asajj wrote: »

Not all government departments will have the details of employees paying tax. I haven't referred to the CMI stats at all. So no point trying to prove them wrong.
You are still missing the point, for above 30s, the gender pay gap does exists. I also work in industry and witness from the 1st hand that there is a gap. That was what TTT referred too , I believe.

And for below 30s there is a pay gap where men don't get paid as much as women. What is being done to fix this?

epm-84

asajj wrote: »

Not all government departments will have the details of employees paying tax. I haven't referred to the CMI stats at all. So no point trying to prove them wrong.
You are still missing the point, for above 30s, the gender pay gap does exists. I also work in industry and witness from the 1st hand that there is a gap. That was what TTT referred too , I believe.

The original quote I copied said:
"The situation is radically different for workers in their 30s. "

If you don't want to refer to the CMI quote then I'm not sure your previous post had as apart from that it only repeated what I had included in the original post. The original post doesn't say there's never been a gap it's saying the gap hasn't just gone for the 22-29 age group, it's actually reversed so women earn more than men for their age group.

One problem women are always going to face is if they take time off work to have children then they aren't gaining experience during that time and finish up behind their colleagues who are male or don't have children so are less likely to get pay rises or promotions. They might even finish up being demoted if they want to initially return part time, as their previous (more senior) role can't easily be split between two people.

epm-84

JJG wrote: »

And for below 30s there is a pay gap where men don't get paid as much as women. What is being done to fix this?

Personally I'm not surprised by the research, it has seemed to me for a while that it's become easier for a young woman to get a good first job offer not because they are better qualified on paper but because they generally perform better in interviews.

Our education system is trying to encourage more girls to get in to IT and engineering as there's a lack of women currently in those roles and some of the senior ones in those industries are very well paid (the lack of women in senior IT and engineering roles may be a contributing factor as to why older women are earning less than men.) However, maybe they should also do more to prepare boys for interviews?

fitnessguy1

the problem with these kind of findings is usually they're just comparing men and women's salaries in the same sector. for e.g. opposite genders working in the healthcare sector could be earning vastly different salaries if you're comparing a graduate doctor (male) with a nurse (female) who has been in the industry for 10 years.

obviously the earnings of the former would be overshadowed by the female, but this isn't showing the true facts. compare a graduate doctor, both male and female, the salaries will not be any different. this is usually a very covert way of hiding the true comparable stats when it comes to earnings of both genders in the same industry.

System

I sometimes suspect that you would have to pay women more than men to get statistical equality, because women do the hard work of pregnancy and giving birth and so the maternal instinct is more powerful than the paternal instinct, perhaps also an inbuilt difference in psychology via evolution

asajj

JJG wrote: »

And for below 30s there is a pay gap where men don't get paid as much as women. What is being done to fix this?

To be fair, not my problem. Men can fight for it if they are concerned.

The original quote I copied said:
"The situation is radically different for workers in their 30s. "

If you don't want to refer to the CMI quote then I'm not sure your previous post had as apart from that it only repeated what I had included in the original post. The original post doesn't say there's never been a gap it's saying the gap hasn't just gone for the 22-29 age group, it's actually reversed so women earn more than men for their age group.

And you are not proving anything just keep repeating the same article and your assumptions.

One problem women are always going to face is if they take time off work to have children then they aren't gaining experience during that time and finish up behind their colleagues who are male or don't have children so are less likely to get pay rises or promotions. They might even finish up being demoted if they want to initially return part time, as their previous (more senior) role can't easily be split between two people.

Women have to take time off for children. There is no if. You clearly don't have much idea I suppose as taking a year off work won't automatically put you behind others in terms of practical experience. There is much more to it than just spending days in the office. Also, senior roles can be easily split between two even three people. It happens all the time through restructuring.

A gap of £1100 is still way below the gap exists for above 30s. Plus, "The minister didn’t specify which statistics he was relying on". Reassuring.

Not sure what you are trying to prove or whether I should apologize because some men earn less now.

epm-84

asajj wrote: »

To be fair, not my problem. Men can fight for it if they are concerned.

If your fighting for equality you can't just fight your own corner, otherwise your not actually fighting for equality at all.

Women have to take time off for children. There is no if.

Having children is a choice, not all women chose to have them so not all women are affected by any consequences of maternity leave.

You clearly don't have much idea I suppose as taking a year off work won't automatically put you behind others in terms of practical experience. There is much more to it than just spending days in the office. Also, senior roles can be easily split between two even three people. It happens all the time through restructuring.

I work in the digital industry and can tell you it is nowhere near as straight forward as that in my industry. Someone in a technical or design role needs to constantly update their skills as technology evolves, someone with 5 years experience who takes a year off can finish up not being familiar with the latest methods, software or programming languages that are a fundamental part of their role. In 2011 I worked on a project for Debenhams using a piece of software called Flash which Apple decided to not support on the iPhone, so by 2013 Flash was practically obsolete and anyone who hadn't learnt new alternative technologies during 2012 was effectively no longer suitability qualified by 2013.

Even with account managers (who don't need to constantly learn new skills) it creates difficulties if they aren't there for normal office hours 5 days a week, as they are the first point of contact for clients and clients prefer one point of contact.

I can't go in to too much detail posting on her but earlier I was roughly referring to what actually happened to one person working for a major retailer. The woman had a middle manager role until going on maternity leave, someone who worked under her was made interim manager in her absence, the woman who was manager wanted to run part time after maternity leave but was told it would only work as a full time role. In the end the interim manager became permanent manager with the original manager effectively becoming a part time deputy.

Plus, "The minister didn’t specify which statistics he was relying on". Reassuring.

I don't think the Minister put a good argument forward which is why I quoted the part that is backed up with statistics applying to under 30s. The Minister seemed to be implying that the problem has gone altogether, which isn't the case.

A gap of £1100 is still way below the gap exists for above 30s.

I think gaps should be expressed as a percentage not a figure. If the average salary for under 30s is £17000 then £1,100 would be a 6.4% gap. If the average salary for people in their 30s is £28000 then a 6.4% gap would be £1,792, which would make £1,500 a smaller gap than the £1,100.