The meta argument I am trying to make is that recent arguments about this have shifted to including accounting for jobs (and usually experience levels), since jecjec was claiming that it's still the antiquated version that does not account for any of those things. If you want to have a discussion about the quality of any of those articles or the studies they're based on, well, that's a different discussion entirely, I present these as evidence that the discussion has moved, not that any of them are correct.
Band 5 staff earn between £21k and £28k. Band 8d staff earn between £65k and £81k.
When we restrict ourselves to a single healthcare profession (in this example I used widwives) that has many more women than men at the entry level jobs we still see men being promoted above women.
wanderr|8 years ago
mpweiher|8 years ago
Only in a Motte-Bailey sense [1][2].
PM: "77 cents to the dollar, it's a crime!!"
DO: "That's complete BS".
PM: "Well, you're right, here is more reasonable data"
DO: "But that doesn't actually show a gap"
PM: "Oh my god, 77 cents to the dollar!!"
[1] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bric...
[2] https://philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf
kobeya|8 years ago
DanBC|8 years ago
This comment links to a rigorous English dataset.
Band 5 staff earn between £21k and £28k. Band 8d staff earn between £65k and £81k.
When we restrict ourselves to a single healthcare profession (in this example I used widwives) that has many more women than men at the entry level jobs we still see men being promoted above women.
pottersbasilisk|8 years ago
It doesnt change the fact there is no general wage gap when experience and accurate jobs comparison are taken into account.
In 2017, equal work DOES have equal pay.