A letter in The Guardian

Danny Dorling rhetorically asks (Letters, 3 April) whether the Oxford Diocesan School Trust is paying part-timers less per hour than full timers, and if that is the explanation for their large gender pay gap. The answer is obviously yes, something we should expect the professor of human geography at Oxford to know. The gender pay gap being reported currently is the total, unadjusted, one; of all men and women in work and it’s around 18%. The pay gap, unadjusted for any other factor, among full-timers only is 9.6% by the same ONS figures.

That part-timers get lower pay per hour is thus the explanation for some half of that gender pay gap currently being reported, isn’t it? Across the entire economy, it will be higher in those fields and organisations which employ more than the average proportion of part-timers. This is such a well known fact that even those in their ivory towers should grasp it.
Tim Worstall
Senior fellow, Adam Smith Institute

Surprised they published it but the letters page does seem to be still a bit more Manchester than the rest of the paper

8 comments on “A letter in The Guardian

  1. It’s not especially remarkable that the letters page in the Graun publishes opinions contrary, indeed, those we might have described as liberal, rather than nazi, in gentler times. It is remarkable that the opinions there published, irrespective of political leaning, are so much better written and argued than the thinly-disguised propaganda spewed by the majority of their journalists.

  2. Margaret Prosser, House of Lords, writes: “Childcare? Often affordable for parents of one child, out of reach for more than one. Hence the exodus of women from decently paid full-time jobs with prospects into part-time work, almost always at the bottom of the pay and opportunities ladder.”

    Why, one wonders, is childcare becoming less affordable, as she bemoans? Could possibly any of the reasons for that be measures speak and campaigned for herself? Do Their LoRd ships and Lady ships ever manage to join up any dots at all?

  3. @Ironman

    Possible the dots are joined but that she believes the cost of eg higher minimum wage, higher education and training requirements for staff, higher staffing ratio etc etc etc should be borne by the state/taxpayer and not the service users. Hence it’s austerity’s fault, presumably. Certainly not they nursery workers everywhere are becoming millionaires.

    There must be some argument for state subsidy on human capital grounds – allow educated/early career women to work to stay in touch with their profession and skills, even if financially it doesn’t really make sense for them to be doing it right now and they might as well just stay at home looking after the kids instead if only short term money issues were considered. The hope’s that in the long run it prevents deskilling and lets them get back on the career progression ladder in their 30s/40s. Though quite where the breakeven point is on the argument I’m not sure.

  4. “There must be some argument for state subsidy on human capital grounds – allow educated/early career women to work to stay in touch with their profession and skills, even if financially it doesn’t really make sense for them to be doing it right now and they might as well just stay at home looking after the kids instead if only short term money issues were considered. The hope’s that in the long run it prevents deskilling and lets them get back on the career progression ladder in their 30s/40s. Though quite where the breakeven point is on the argument I’m not sure.”

    If you look at the medical profession, which is more than well enough remunerated for its members to be able to afford child care, then you see that women still leave the profession in droves at the time they start having families, and rarely return to full time work when the children are old enough to not need hands on care. This factor is the cause of the lack of GPs – more and more women have (and are continuing to) qualified as GPs, and their choice to not work the same full time career paths than men have historically done means there is a dearth of GPs to be found.

    So while women in lower paid jobs may indeed struggle to find the money for childcare, the evidence shows that even if they did have the money they will still tend to choose to care for their own children at the expense of their career.

  5. Amy Richardson, Associate solicitor, Coffin Mew, Brighton:

    …the construction sector seem to be the worst offenders…

    Really? I’m shocked; shocked that women choose not to work in a dirty, dangerous, physically demanding job outside in all weathers.

    A shame Amy didn’t explain why rather than bitching.

  6. @Jim, April 7, 2018 at 5:21 pm

    Agree. Female GPs (and Dentists) are an elephant in the room which politicians, msm, agitators etc ignore.

    I assume same happens with female doctors in hospitals. Also in law.

  7. @Tim W

    This had me thinking about the “poverty” lie in USA. Does Mr McGuffie have a valid point?

    Three down from your’s:

    While not wishing to deny a gender pay gap, it should be noted that gender gap reporting is on gross income per hour, before the effect of tax and benefits. So, for instance, men pay about twice as much income tax as women (£60bn against £30bn), whereas, because some women earn less (and are more likely to head a single-parent family), some women will gain through the benefit system. For instance (based on an online calculator), a single parent working 20 hours a week at £10 an hour with one child under 16 will have their take home pay almost doubled (from £8,000 to £16,000). The effect of using gross pay instead of income net of tax and benefits therefore seriously overstates the headline gender pay gap figure.
    Michael McGuffie
    Wellington, Somerset

  8. Female Doctors in hospital are rapacious when faced with time off on ‘maternity holiday’. Nothing gets in their way.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.