Inequality and the gender pay gap

14/Mar

Ilma Amin

Published in post

Inequality and the gender pay gap

Claiming that women earn less than men without explaining why is misleading and dishonest. The pay gap figure does not reflect like-for-like pay gaps, which means it doesn’t calculate the earnings of employees in the same, or at least comparable, roles. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure or hours worked per week that influence earnings.

Several studies conducted worldwide successfully debunk the myth of the gender pay gap. Australia’s free-market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), for example, showed that the numerical figures used in such statistics are purely an inaccurate comparison of the median wages between men and women, completely disregarding situational factors as to whether the jobs are full time or part time.

Dr Mikaa, a Senior Fellow of the IPA, asserts that averages can be very misleading as “differences in pay should be acknowledged to reflect individual choices of balance between work and family commitments”. Not only that, statistics aren’t taking into account that some industries pay far better than others.

“There are individual forces about what industries people want to work in, for example mining, where there is a certain modicum of danger money that’s available.

Dr Novak said all the evidence shows the observed “pay gap” is due to people taking advantage of the freedom to choose that is increasingly available. To say the gap is due to some entrenched sexism is completely not the case.

The gender pay gap isn’t the sexist war against women the mass media is so desperately trying to convey. Research by the Institute of Economic Affairs has shown that the gap merely illustrates the many changes in industries (favouring brainwork rather than manual labour), demography (fewer children, longer lives) and lifestyle changes (more single people, easier divorce, cohabitation, gay liberation).

Bad data not only undermines the credibility of the cause, but it creates barriers to progress by making it impossible to measure change. Inaccurate statistics devalue women, portraying them as earning less than men, when it should be more productive to focus on their undeniable and unstoppable progress in the labour market. It’s unproductive because, for decades, young girls have been repetitively discouraged from higher paying technical jobs and careers as a result of the gender pay gap myth.

Women of today’s society in the UK are among the best educated and informed human beings to have ever existed. Let’s not manipulate statistical data to create an illusory gender pay gap, which is demeaning and divorced from reality.

Ilma Amin is an IEA intern and studied Accounting and Management at the University of Western Australia

As with all IEA publications, the views expressed are those of the authors and not those of the Institute (which has no corporate view), its managing trustees, Academic Advisory Council or senior staff

Ilma Amin

Comments are closed.

meduza

28/09/2018

I don't even know the way I finished up here, however I believed this publish was good. I don't recognise who you might be however definitely you're going to a famous blogger when you are not already. Cheers!

meduza

26/09/2018

Greetings! Very helpful advice within this post! It's the little changes that will make the most important changes. Many thanks for sharing!

Felix Hathaway

22/03/2018

Thanks! My preference in any sort of voucher system is for equality (everyone gets the same voucher) rather than aiming at some sort of equity (by which I suppose you mean some groups getting more or less so that the end amount of money they have to spend is more even). This is based off of a general dislike of governments using policy to favour certain groups at the expense of others, as well as a preference for simplicity. It's worth noting however that in terms of 'equity' independents already offer a huge number of scholarships and supported places, so I would also question whether a differentiated voucher system is neccesssary. As to countries with high ranking education systems, I think there are a few things that are fairly common. I can't pretend to be an expert on education globally, but to put it simply: - Choice / differentiation (many of these countries have voucher systems, or features that drive competition between schools e.g. being very high density) See the Estonian voucher program, or Direct Subsidy Scheme schools in Hong Kong. This often extends to selective schooling. - Widespread instance of parents spending thier own money. Often through private tuition, as another way of 'topping up' school fees. Also though direct payments to schools, for example in Singapore, where primary education is free, but parents commonly spend money at (heavily subsidised) secondary schools. - 'Whole class teaching' or 'Direct instruction' as opposed to 'child centred learning.' That is, they often have slightly higher student to teacher (and teaching assistant) ratios, and more time is spent learning from the teacher at the front of the class in rigidly planned lessons. Outside the scope of this blog, but has been convingly shown by US research in 'Project Follow Through' to be the most effective teaching method. There are almost certainly a bevy of other considerations including culture and relative wealth, however they cannot readily be controlled by policymakers.

Peter Sullivan

22/03/2018

Great article! Really interesting read! In a token system would they be divvied out equally or for equity? How does the education system work in those countries with the highest rankings?

Hermione

14/03/2018

Interesting read