OK, OK, I’m making a point here, and I hear you, Stu, you’ve got 11
reasons why you’re worth every penny, and probably six of ‘em are pretty good
reasons….
But if you were a Sue and not a Stu, doing exactly what you do, it’s a
real good bet that your paycheck would be smaller.
We all know that, in general, women get paid less than men. We have
good Census Bureau records going back to 1955 that prove it, and we all know it
was true before then….
Sure, the gap between women’s pay and men’s pay has been getting smaller in
the last 60 years, at a too-slow pace, but still getting smaller—last year the
median paycheck of women working full-time was 82% of the median paycheck of
full-time men. And of course there are some structural, non-sexist reasons for
the gap (different types of jobs, the “baby break” in women’s careers, etc….)
Still, you know and I know that there is pay discrimination against
women—if you’ve worked, you’ve experienced it or seen it. You know it’s true….
And here’s the thing: pay for men has been shrinking since 1999, and
that’s the main reason that the gender pay gap has been improving. If men’s pay
had risen about 7% during that time, as women’s pay has done, there would have
been no improvement in their relative earnings.
It’s men who decide to pay the gals less than the guys, and that’s piggery.
To be fair about it, if you’re a man, you should take a pay cut.
That would work.
Here's another take on gender bias in the workplace
No comments:
Post a Comment