Timmy elsewhere

Just in the comments at The Observer:

“and of those, non-white women are paid even less.”

Not so I’m afraid. Black women, on average of course, get paid more than white women. That really is the finding from the ONS ASHE survey, which is the basic information source for these things.

Odd finding, I know, but still true. the reason being that black women are hugely concentrated in London, where wages are higher than they are in the rest of the country.

Odd what you can learn from actually bothering to look at the numbers, isn’t it?

“In the UK (26th in the global gender pay gap list), women are still paid 19% less than men (a woman on average earns around 80p for every £1 earned by a man)”

And that’s gross manipulation of the numbers. The answer as to why is here:

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/politics-government/could-the-echr-please-stop-lying-about-the-gender-pay-gap-please/

You’ve all been told by the Statistics Authority that you shouldn’t report the gender pay gap this way. It’s a shade under 10% currently, not 19%. And yet you keep trotting out this number that you’ve specifically been told you shouldn’t.

Why?

9 thoughts on “Timmy elsewhere”

  1. “Surely the only reason for a company not to practise earning transparency is if their wages just aren’t fair?”

    Or… to protect the privacy of their employees, who may well think it’s nobody else’s damn business what they earn?

    As for “fair”, if you voluntarily keep showing up to work for a salary you – a grown up – agreed with your employer, in what sense isn’t that “fair”?

  2. “In the UK (26th in the global gender pay gap list)”

    Is there perhaps a correlation between how a country ranks internationally on its gender pay gap and the level of women’s participation in the workforce?

    I’d have thought if women tend not to work, they will tend to only do so if there is a good incentive, generally high pay. So if a good proportion of the women working are the doctors, lawyers etc., the average pay for women will be high, which will disguise any gender pay gap and make it look smaller. But if you have high participation rates, working women will be spread more evenly across the workforce and the true gender pay gap (if any) will be more obvious.

    It’s probably been looked into but I can’t be bothered searching for it; does anyone know?

  3. Quite so: gender pay gaps tend to be lower where it’s unusual for a married woman (and especially one with kids) to work outside the home. Like Italy and Germany. What happens is that only the professional women do go back to work. Thus shrinking the pay gap.

    From memory it’s only 5% in Italy.

  4. “And yet you keep trotting out this number that you’ve specifically been told you shouldn’t. Why?” Because if a lie gets told often enough it becomes accepted as the truth. Gerry Adams and the PLO are 2 cases in point.

  5. As so many women are in the work force who does the procreation?
    Mass imigration will only help if child bearing becomes a good thing for parents.
    Breeding and making one or two children- only to hand them over to other people or the state gives you Detroit.

  6. There is an argument that women work full-time but only get paid for part-time work because housework and child-rearing isn’t valued.

    But if you were measuring that, you’d want total pay of all working-age men divided by all working-age men and the same for women, so women who don’t work are counted in the figures.

    Only counting people that are working is silly and screws up the numbers; you either count everyone, or you count hourly wages, not the part-time/full-time divide.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *