Gender Inequality - it's a jungle out there
Radio 4’s flagship, the Today programme, has fallen for a common misrepresentation of the gap in pay between men and women.
Or is it a misrepresentation? It depends on who you are talking to, as various bodies interpret this key statistic in various ways.
Introducing an item on Today on July 29, Sarah Montague accepted at face value the assertion by the Women and Work Commission that women are paid, on average, 23 per cent less than men. But the Office of National Statistics quotes a figure of 12.8 per cent, just over half as much.
And if that isn’t confusing enough, the Equality and Human Rights Commission believes the gap is 17.1 per cent.
These differences matter, so it would be nice to achieve a common basis for estimating them. Until we do, journalists should beware of accepting whatever figure is thrown at them. Government bodies with different objectives can easily come up with different figures – and may honestly believe they are right.
Earnings comparisons are best made on the basis of median, rather than mean, earnings. This is because the salaries at the top of the scale are often high enough to distort the mean. On measures of “average” salaries, most people earn less than average.
Both the ONS and the Women and Work Commission, which is part of the Government Equalities Office, do use the median. (The EHRC, just to be awkward, uses the mean – of which more later.)
So why the difference between the ONS and the GEO? The ONS only counts full-time work, whereas the GEO includes part-time work, three quarters of which is done by women. This increases the apparent gap in pay between the sexes.
Which is right? The Statistics Authority cogitated over this in a report published in June. Neither measure is satisfactory, it admits, but it does come down in favour of not combining the two, as the GEO does. Its recommendation is to present the two estimates, for full-time and part-time employees, separately.
It publishes rather a striking table (Table 2 in the UKSA’s note) that actually shows that women working part-time earn 3.4 per cent more than men in median hourly earnings. This isn’t a figure you’ll find the GEO or the Women and Work Commission quoting very often.
Where does all that leave us? Of those in full-time work, women earn 12.8 per cent less than men. Women in part-time work earn fractionally more than men, but less than full-time men or full-time women. When full- and part-time work are combined, the preponderance of women in part-time work produces the 22.6 per cent gap headlined by the GEO and accepted without question by Today.
So what about the rogue figure of 17.1 per cent quoted by the EHRC? It uses mean earnings rather than median, justifying it by saying that women are over-represented at one extreme of the distribution and men at the other, which results (it says) in gaps calculated from the median understating the size of the problem.
It then goes on to claim, remarkably, that for women working part time, the gap is 35.6 per cent. This dizzying figure is achieved by comparing part-time women with full-time men – a comparison hard to justify on any rational basis. As the Statistics Authority remarks, this estimate “needs particularly careful explanation and justification if it is not to mislead”. (Translation: it’s misleading.)
The gender pay gap is a jungle, where journalists should not venture without careful preparation and a trusty guide. Discussions are going on between ONS and GEO to determine how the results should be presented in future, and we may see some results when the 2009 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings is published in November.
But somehow I think it’s going to take a lot of persuasion to get the equality-wallahs to abandon the high estimates to which they are so attached. 35.6 per cent? Whew!
Mike O'Neill (not verified) wrote,
Wed, 05/08/2009 - 13:34
Let's try a mind experiment of following all males starting their working careers this year. We will split them randomly into two groups; one group will have no restrictions on them, the other will pursue a non-career-related interest that will require time out of the workplace that exactly mirrors time taken by women for childcare.
So some in this second group will take no time out, some will take only relatively short periods and some will take extended periods of many years. Some of those that take time out will also restrict their choice of jobs when they return to the workplace to those where hours can be flexible; some will dleliberately choose part-time jobs.
Let us also assume that employers are in no way prejudiced against the time-outers. They will pick the best, most appropriate person in each case for recruitment or promotion.
As they progress through their careers will there be a difference in average earnings between the two groups? Almost certainly, yes. Will it be as much as 12.8% for full-timers and 22.6% overall? Hard to tell, but it is by no means unbelievable. If anything, I would expect the full-time difference to be larger and the part-time one smaller.
Even if the differences turned out to smaller than this it still highlights that a target of overall gender equality on pay is unreasonable.
Of course there should be equality between comparable males and females but raw statistics hide whether we are getting there. Much more detailed analysis is needed and a better metric that takes into account time out of the workplace when comparing pay. Only then will we be able to understand the true level of inequality and have a sensible debate of what we do about it.
Anonymous (not verified) wrote,
Thu, 01/10/2009 - 11:44
it's obviously that the real statistic is in fact 12.8%.
from someone who knows
Tom Nygren (not verified) wrote,
Fri, 06/11/2009 - 01:15
If we are to solve the problem of pay inequality we need look no further than the family courts. 45% divorce rates coupled with only 12% of sole residencies awarded to fathers inevitably result in less educated, less career-oriented population of women because they will be forced to remain at home with the children.
CS (not verified) wrote,
Mon, 14/06/2010 - 12:14
I liked Mike O'Neill's comment. That is an interesting influence on income that I had never considered before and I imagine it likely has some influence on the difference in compensation between males and females when looking at raw statistics.
I don't doubt that some of the difference in average compensation between males and females is the result of sexism. Sexism has been going on for a long time, and although society has made some great changes over the past century to correct some of the historical, egregious injustices against females, it would be foolish to think that sexism no longer has any influence in the workplace.
That being said, even though I am a consistent supporter of equal rights and opportunities for both sexes, I have always been uncomfortable with a lot of the arguments made about differences in pay between males and females. Specifically, I've always thought it was unreasonable to suggest that the vast majority of this difference is due to discrimination in the workplace, or that the percentage difference in average pay is directly proportional to the "amount/level of discrimination".
I think one of the reasons for this difference in salaries is the ultra-competitive socialization many men grow up with. We have been trained, molded and reinforced (through reward, *and* punishment) from a young age to be ruthlessly, destructively competitive with other men. "Highly successful" men are often willing to undermine their coworkers, stab friends in the back to get ahead, steal credit for the accomplishments of others, and are possessed by a type of ego-mania and delusions of grandeur. An appropriate degree of self-promotion and the ability and willingness to present the boss a confident (but honest) hard-sell for higher pay or job advancement are valuable skills. However, I think its common to find an unhealthy amount of this in business. This ultra-competitive, no quarter, scorched-earth ladder-climbing destroys friendships/relationships between men and further reinforces the idea that nice guys (ethical guys) finish last, and if you want to get ahead you need to be willing to throw your buddy under the bus. I speculate that this is one of the major reasons why studies are consistently showing that men have very small and weak social support networks compared to women, and that men's friendships with other men tend to be much more superficial than women's same-sex friendships. We have been taught from a young age to fight and claw our way to the top over the bodies of our brothers, and in the process, we are eating each other alive. Our parents, teachers, role-models and heroes tried to mold us into competitors, but we turned into cannibals.
On the other hand, I don't believe most women receive a good enough training in assertive self-promotion. I get the impression there is a tendency towards a cautious, somewhat-passive approach to advancement among many women (eg. applying for and hoping for a better position or better pay, versus applying for the position, networking/schmoozing with higher-ups, organizing a substantiated, convincing argument for promotion and evidence of your accomplishments and value to the company, and finally meeting with the boss to 'sell' the idea of promotion). These observations are based on my personal observations among friends and in the workplace, and none of them are absolutes describing what "every (wo)man thinks and acts like" but I think that these two factors - the self-destructive over-aggressive socialization of many males and the lack of training in self-promotion, confrontation and assertiveness among females - both play a major role in the disparity between average salaries of men and women. I also think that there is a heavy but unrecognized price being paid by some men for their higher salary; specifically a loss of supportive relationships, a profound emotional and social isolation, and a deadening of the heart's natural desire to engage in cooperative, supportive work and activities.
Anonymous (not verified) wrote,
Mon, 07/02/2011 - 17:06
I think gender equality in the workplace should endure perfectly when women have to go through what men do, especially younger men, who are constantly in need of what someone (women) have. When that is equal, then the workplace should be equal, until then, do not give up male jobs to women. Its not fair, men need the money, and to take money opportunities away from men to give to women, IS NOT EQUALITY!!!!!!