Surprisingly, we’ve received quite a bit of feedback as a result of last Friday’s Money Morning on ‘How Patent Protection Stifles Innovation.’
The general gist of most responses – to paraphrase – has been, “patent protection is important to protect small businesses and inventors from greedy thieving big businesses.”
We’re paraphrasing, so no-one actually wrote that. But some weren’t far off it.
However, we won’t tackle this subject again today, as we’d like to do more rummaging around first.
Until then we’ll throw this question out there: Doesn’t patent protection benefit big businesses more than small businesses and inventors?
Right now, we don’t know the answer for sure. But our inclination is to think that big businesses love patent protection because they’re the ones that derive most benefit. And the ones that derive least benefit are the consumers.
But as I say, we’ll cover this topic again some other time – maybe next week. Until the, feel free to make any comments on this thought and any opinions you have on the subject here.
For today’s subject, we’ll look at something a little different. A subject that could alienate at least half of the Money Morning readers.
It’s always dangerous broaching a subject when we know you may not like what we write, but as you’ll be aware that rarely puts us off.
This morning a couple of news stories caught our eye:
“Gender pay gap shows no sign of abating” – news.com.au
“Bosses to fund parental leave” – news.com.au
Our initial response to these stories is: why would anyone want to lose their competitive advantage in the workforce?
That’s right, if it’s true – and statistics suggest it is true – that female employees are generally paid less than male employees then attempts to ‘close’ the gender pay gap have the potential to rob female workers of one of their competitive advantages – that they are prepared to work for lower pay than male employees.
Whichever way you look at it, whether it’s employers ‘exploiting’ female employees or female employees having little choice but to accept lower wages, the statistics suggest that female employees as a whole do accept lower rates of pay than male employees.
Again, that’s the stats talking.
Therefore it’s reasonable to argue that this is a competitive advantage for a potential female employee. That she can undercut a potential male employee by implicitly or explicitly offering her labour services at a lower cost than a potential male employee.
Let’s take a look at a chart showing the male and female employment numbers since 1978:
As you can see, employment numbers for both have risen over this time. The number of male employers has climbed by around 50%, however, the number of female employees has more than doubled.
What’s the reason for this? Is it due to pay equalisation? Or is it due to fewer restrictions on women entering the workforce?
Or, is it because employers are able to pay female employees less than male employees? Giving female employees a competitive advantage over their male counterparts.
The problem with the idea of forcing pay equalisation on employers is that it’s more likely to create a greater inequality of pay or cause a shift of employment.
Let’s think about it this way. What does an employer want from his or her workforce? Well, they want their employees to produce as many products or sales for them as possible in return for paying as low a wage as possible.
At some point an employer will discover an equilibrium rate of pay at which he or she knows that employees will be happy with. In all probability this will entail different rates of pay for male and female employees – the numbers say that’s true.
But make no mistake, the employer doesn’t set these rates because they are an evil capitalist, they do so based on experience. And it’s likely – as the statistics show – that female employees are prepared to accept lower wages in return for their labour.
It’s fair to argue then, that as more females have made themselves available to enter the workforce in the last thirty years, employers have hired more females based on the ability to pay them a lower wage than they would pay for a male employee who is doing the same job.
Again, that’s not us saying that, the statistics say it is so.
Now, here’s the problem with pay equalisation and paid maternity leave. It robs the female employee of their competitive advantage.
When a female is applying for a job, whether we like it or not, one thought process going through an employer’s mind is whether the potential employee could leave to have a family. And as you know, when a child is born, overwhelmingly it’s the mother not the father that forgoes employment to care for the child.
Of course, it’s against the law for the employer to ask if the female candidate is planning to have a child, so they have to guess. And because they don’t know for certain they may choose to take out an insurance policy by offering the female candidate a lower rate of pay.
If the employer can get away with paying a female job applicant a lower wage than a comparable male applicant then maybe the employer may take the risk. But what if there is now pay equalisation?
Will the employer still take the risk if he or she believes there’s a chance the female employee could ask for time off to look after a new family? Prior to pay equalisation, the employer could have factored that in to the lower wage, but with equal pay the employer can’t do that unless the wage rate of male employees is lowered to the same level as female employees.
And that creates another problem. Our guess is that it qualifies as a social problem.
Again, whether you like it or not, many male employees are likely to think it ‘unfair’ if they’re getting paid the same wage as a female employee who takes six month’s maternity leave, or is away once a fortnight to take care of a sick child.
Or if you want more stereotypes – doesn’t work on the weekend, or in the evenings, or has to pick the kids up from school, etc…
We all know that’s a stereotypical view of the female employee, but the fact remains that the majority of male employees are likely to have those thoughts, even if they’re new age metrosexuals.
The consequent knock-on effect of pay equalisation is that it could harm the employment prospects for prospective female employees. How so?
For a start it could mean fewer females employees are employed by businesses. If there is still the perception that male employees expect a higher rate of pay to female employees then it’s possible that employers will be less inclined to employ females on the same wage.
The other potential knock-on effect is that male employees shift employment to workplaces that offer higher wages, pushing out higher paid female employees.
We note an article from The Age newspaper last year, “Male teachers shifting schools.”
According to the article:
“Educators were perplexed about the drift of male teachers to non-government schools… Australian Education Union president Angelo Gavrielatos was equally puzzled…”
Reasons they give is that perhaps male teachers are being enticed to private schools at the expense of public schools.
Again, we have no idea whether that’s true or not. The article quotes Independent Schools Council executive director Bill Daniels, “It’s not a concerted effort by us and I can’t imagine why the figures would be that way.”
Well, one potential reason is the phenomenon we’ve mentioned above. That male employees are conditioned to expect a higher wage than female employees. If the state schools system mandates equal pay for male and female teachers, and male teachers consider it to be ‘unfair’ then surely there’s a greater chance that male teachers will seek higher paying jobs.
One way of doing that is to seek employment in the private education sector where wages are usually higher.
In other words, pay equalisation in one industry – public schools – has a knock-on effect of increasing the number of male employees in another industry – private schools.
Therefore we can also suggest that a further effect is fewer higher paying jobs for female teachers in the private sector as they are facing increased competition from male teachers.
Look, we don’t have enough space to cover off every scenario here. Naturally, there would also be circumstances where employers prefer to employ more women and fewer men, and are therefore able to set the equal pay level closer to the level acceptable by female employees rather than male employees.
But either way, the overall effect isn’t a bumper payday for women employees.
The fact is, like every other attempt at market manipulation by governments, at the initial point of impact the appearance is that the policy has been successful. Yet as soon as you look at the collateral damage it becomes apparent that many others have suffered as a consequence.
Quite possibly, this could be the most unpopular article we’ve ever written for Money Morning – although that comment itself could be seen as patronising! – but the reality is that pay equalisation and paid maternity has to be paid for from somewhere.
One way is an attempt by businesses to charge higher prices. But this is difficult, as businesses would already charge higher prices if they thought they could get away with it. The fact businesses haven’t raised their prices already suggests their ability to do so is limited.
Therefore the cost has to be born elsewhere. And the only other ‘elsewhere’ is in job losses or a net cut in wages.
There’s little doubt that pay equalisation and paid maternity leave won’t create a new dawn for women in the workforce. Odds are it will do nothing more than lower the overall job opportunities for women in the higher paid jobs, and consequently lower the pay in the lower paid jobs.
We could be wrong, but it’s worth thinking about.
Cheers.
Kris.
{ 49 comments… read them below or add one }
Hmm, the silence is deafening, isnt it. Like me, I guess people just dont know what to say.
It’s overwhelmingly disappointing that the attitudes of men toward equality are no different in the 21st century than they were in the last few. Using the concept of “competitive advantage” to justify inequality is outrageous and simply cannot be supported in any way.
Indeed, if your argument had any weight, then indigenous people (who are paid far less than any of us) would be the most competitive in the labour market!
With regard to maternity leave, why should it only be for women? Surely fathers would like to spend a little time with their newborn children. It should be for everyone, then it would be fair to all (except those that cannot or choose not to have children, of course).
Shae – I think your going to have to take a pay cut.
Sandra – I would like to hear your views on this topic.
Perhaps this kind of interference in the labor market we can do without. While we are on the topic, worth considering the rules for women representation on boards of listed companies:
http://www.womenonboards.org.au/news/media100308.htm
FIIK
Remind me to yawn.
Oh and BTW I’m one of the Mikes that leaves comments here but as there are at least 2 and I suspect 3 judging by comments I decided to adopt my old moniker from the early nineties when I would battle others as sleep deprived as I in multi-player Quake and Duke Nukem on Game Universe. I don’t have a problem with Jews probably cos I don’t know any but that’s beside the point. So can you please stop moderating my comments.
Sorry for straying onto an all too familiar topic, but here is that theme again, and some analysis to go with it:
“One of the reasons why we have such a strong housing property market is that banks are restricting loans to property developers but spraying housing buyers with loans. There is a shortage of dwellings, so buyers armed with bank cash want to buy, but the industry can’t create sufficient new dwelling stock partly because of bank lending policies.
………………….
In Australia, we have nothing like the US situation but our banks are over-exposed in certain areas like small retailers and property developers, so they adopt strict criteria for these loans.
As the economic recovery proceeds the banking attitude may change but right now it’s a deep problem because the retail link in the business chain is being starved of credit and house prices are exploding forcing up interest rates partly because banks are boosting demand but squeezing supply.” — Robert Gottliebsen – March 9, 2010
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/banks-economic-recovery-business-confidence-consum-pd20100309-3CUPZ?OpenDocument&src=kgb&WELCOME=AUTHENTICATED REMEMBER
these property prices going up………
wont benefit anyone in the loooooooooooonnnnnnggggggggggggggggg
run
If Gottliebsen’s analysis is correct that it is the banks’ policy that is stoking demand while at the same time choking off supply of new housing, and if we are lucky enough not to be king hit out of left field in the meantime, then the trigger for a marked reversal in the housing market will be a change in lending attitudes to builders and developers.
etch – that is correct. But, remember, in the long run we are all dead.
Sayce is right again. The figures speak for themselves. The percentage increase in female workers has been greater than the increase in male workers. This will only continue if female workers continue to price themselves as providing the same output as male workers but at a better price to businesses who hire them as labour.
It may seem “unfair” but females seem happy to work at lower wages as the figures show this to be the case.
The latest on robber barrons, Ireland and Greece:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx8Wpuu8-Dw&feature=player_embedded
China keeps the world guessing. How much credence would you give this one?
China says committed to U.S. debt, wary on gold
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6280K720100309?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a49:g43:r1:c0.188889:b31625786:z0
Anyone tempted to sell their gold?
SD – women are not necessarily “happy” to work for less, but in the labor market they may be getting a maternity-leave-risk discount. Heck, I’ve heard of cases when women went on maternity leave half year after.
cb – none of the topics on this blog will ever be as exciting as housing. I am glad Robert Gottliebsen caught on.
Hmm, people willing to work for lower wages? Isn’t that one of the usual anti-immigration slogans? Perhaps we need a new campaign:
“Women: they’re taking our jobs!”
IF women have a “competetive advantage in the workforce” by being paid less, why do we not see women as heads of most of the board rooms, businesses and corporations throughout the country?
Funny how I have only ever read men advocating lower pay for women. The reason more women are employed has more to do with the skill sets required in modern employment than the fact that they compete with lower wages.
Women are paid lower because they bought into the bogus arguments that feminism would push them all into working and that they shouldn’t support legislation that required equal pay for equal work.
Australia’s outdated and biased attitudes towatrds women in the workforce and the balance of pay do not help. Having once been told that I deserved lower pay than an (incompetent) co worker because “he has a family to support” I have no tolerance for organisations that operate this way.
cb..#13…I have had an abundance of experience in this area and may I recommend a good book to read, regarding negotiating with the Chinese, “When Yes means No.” you can find it on Amazon http://www.amazon.co.uk/When-Yes-Means-Maybe-Negotiate/dp/0804833877
The Chinese NEVER, and I mean NEVER, shown their cards, or announce their intentions. You can bet your grandmother that if they point North you look South.
I find it difficult to believe that neither men nor women really have the fortitude to significantly challenge the basic argument of this post.
Lets start from point 1. If I was hiring staff to manually haul sacks of potatoes weighing 50 kg from point to point I would hire all men. Note that there is not much of this type of work around these days.
But if I was hiring staff to make informed decisions, analyse data, serve members of the public, teach, or in fact any of the larger category of work that most of us do, I would want a mix of both genders, but I would weigh in favour of women.
I find an all women staffing situation can quickly become problematic, as does an all male staffing situation.
Now why would I weigh in favour of women, because they tend to not turn up to work and waste the whole morning getting over the effects of the night before, they have a greater sense of job appreciation, and they will perform the tasks without any of the rebellious nonsense that many men display. Men often have a grand vision of themselves that clouds their judgement, women suffer less from this problem.
As for pay, well I have never paid on gender, but on performance, and on that basis women hold their own.
yeah CB ..i went thru the peter schiff 1-8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5t4V2g_mYM&feature=related
how bubbles & busted are created videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mssLkt3iBGM&NR=1
mate if it could be shown 2 just 1 out 10 people
& motivate em to get their head out the a55es ,
cos the future wont be too bright with USA defaulting on china
“”"”"Now why would I weigh in favour of women, because they tend to not turn up to work”"”"”
hah??????PF i dont get it ..its better they dont turn up????????
PF – apart from a strange anti-male bias, what you said is not a challenge to the premise of this article either. So, in your view, do women need a pay-equalising legislation or they can get by on their merits?
I worked in a company which I would describe as a home-based international business. Typical employee – stay-at-home mum or would-be-mum. But pay is less than in other, office-based businesses. These women go for it because it gives them choice and lifestyle, but this “added value” is not reflected in the stats. Were they paid equally to the men in the same role? I would not know; there weren’t any men in the same role.
Have we not already legislated the hell out of workplace relationships?
What about the research that shows that women tend to be in PART TIME or CASUAL work more than males and hence this drops their “income” and therefore “drops” the income women earn.
In my 20 or so years in provate and public companies I have never, and I repeat never known a woman/ man who is doing the exact same job, where the woman would be paid less. If you have any evidence, please give me concrete examples NOT statistics!
And because of these silly statistics, we will now have reverse discrimination, oh, sorry affirmative action, sanctioned by the government, against all other sectors of society, to get more women (not the right qualified person) just women into senior roles! What about indigenous aussies? Or asians? Or Indians? Or disabled? Why don’t we also push for more of these groups to be given these senior roles/ directorships? Best person for the job is my belief, whatever their colour/ background/ or if they wear a dress or not!
Remember there are lies, damned lies and then there is statistics!
There is a very interesting chapter in SuperFreakonomics by Levitt & Dubner about the statistical difference between Men & Womens pay. Of course there are exceptions to every rule but the simple truth is that Men are in the workforce for much longer. Therefore careers are longer, therefore pay increases.
I don’t think anybody could argue that the female population shorten their own careers through maternity, compassionate leave, travel leave etc. For example women are much more likely to take 6 months off to volunteer for charity than men. It’s because you ladies are more compassionate. Sure you don’t get paid as much but you definitely live longer!
lol, etch, mefinks you doctor dam PF words. hahahahaa
Fitch, Fitch, just reminding you to remember to yawn.
Why CB is allowed to continue to spout property commentary ad nauseum in non-property posts is mystifying.
He just sounds like a creaky wheel.
This post is rubbish. Reading Kris is now like reading Andrew Bolt. Very occasionally is spot on, but mostly waffles.
@ etch. Are you serious? Wow, the level of intellectual discourse is really quite stunning.
I still haven’t gotten around to reading this article in full, but I have just read the short version of the argument in today’s article yet to be published.
It seems to me that this argument is little more than a sick cousin to Sayce’s rantings against the minimum wage. This is also borne out by some of the very astute observations coming out in the comments.
We have dealt with the question of the minimum wage before, so I will not repeat all the arguments agan, but simply point out that being employed cannot be the be all and end all of this question. You have to be employed at a decent wage, so that your employment actually bestows you a decent spending power for it to be much good to yourself, your dependents, and even the overall health of the economy.
Abolish the minimum wage as Sayce would suggest, and while we are at it, why not open the borders and allow Chinese and Vietnamese migrant workers on $2 a day compete with our domestic labour, and see where that will get us with our economy and our much cherished standard of living. Once again, Sayce must be dreamin’ …….
Bera – spot on! I think Sue Morphet, CEO of Pacific Brands is paid less than her male predecessor. But then, PacBrands is not quite the same company.
Bera..#23.. “Best person for the job is my belief, whatever their colour/ background/ or if they wear a dress or not!” Fully agree.
I have 75 employees, one third are female, 2 are Muslim and dress as their religion dictates, I have a “mentally handicapped” man that would give Rudd a run for his money (and win) as his logic is astounding. I have a couple of Islanders, great family people. Basically a “league of nations”, so as usual the politicians, and the special interest groups, want to make something out of nothing for their own agendas…this is how wars are started.
Tim….is someone holding a gun to your head? If not, take what you like from the posts and discard what you don’t like, but please don’t stop anyone else from expressing what they feel may be of interest regarding the economy as a whole.
SV @ 22 _ I agree that for women who want flexible hours or part time work, the rate of pay is not the primary motivating factor, so we probably need to continue to offer those positions to women who wish to have more “family time” in their lives.
But for the career professional it is a different matter. By the way I wasn’t talking about the very young in either men or women, but perhaps over 25 year olds.
Women do have a few more “family issues” than men, but they will often make that up through working lunch breaks etc.
In an office enviroment I still lean towards women for work value.
Is the reason there are more women in the work force now due
to the need to have a double income to pay the mortgage ??
Are the pay rates for single women higher than for married women & does this mean married women (double income) will accept a lower rate of pay just to boost their combined incomes ?
Most jobs I’ve seen advertise the Position & give a Salary Guide – then set about finding the right person – one good person working for 2 years is heaps better than a slacker working for 20 years.
Tim – I try to post anything that is current and relevant to the broad interests of this audience. As far as I am aware, our keyboards are not locked to topics, but if you would like to see more censorship or any some such restrictions, then you can always appeal to the editor, although I would regard any such restrictions as daft.
In the meantime, I apologise for trying your patience. But remember: patience, no less than civility, though they may not get you straight to heaven, are nevertheless valuable virtues. Try cultivating some and enjoy the difference.
Do you know how the stats are made up?
Do the stats compare total incomes or hourly rates?
Do the stats show the comparison for varies income scales and/or particular occupations?
I suspect that the stats show total incomes not hourly rates.
Also I suspect that for positions up to at least middle management there would be very little difference between in the hourly rates, but many of the females want hours to suit their childrens needs, so their gross pay is less.
I believe that sexist employers are in the minority, most employers/managers want an efficient workforce and don’t care whether they are male or female.
More rules are an unnecessary burdon on society. More rules mean a bigger public service to suck even more money from the real world for little if any value.
Bureaucrats have not learned that legislation cannot going to stop illegal or unethical behaviour.
As a kid on the odd occassion I got home from school before my Mum I felt empty inside. Today’s kids will be alot happier if more Mums are forced to stay at home because they don’t have work.
Sayle seems to have forgotten that correlation does not mean causality. Yes the numbers might be correlated but it’s a huge leap to assume that therefore A causes B…
Greg…well said. Your last statement truly sums it up.
None of my staff’s pay is rated on anything else but job description and ability. Only a fool would jeopardise his company or business just to save a couple of dollars. Good people are the foundations of any business. I have found that people who are loyal to their employer are also loyal to their families, and visa versa. And if an employer is incapable of recognising that, they will suffer in the long run.
Australia is in the dark ages. Women should just go on strike.
By your reasoning then, older women (children already grown up and self sufficient) should then have an advantage over younger women (who may, one day, want children).
Ahhh…….generalization is a curse but to personalize every topic would be incongruous at best that would consign you to the rest of your life spent understanding the motives and intentions of the 20 plus million aussies let alone the rest of this rock. Just take some consolation from the fact that your death like your birth will be truly your own.
I have to admit that in the past the thought that i may be payed less simply because i am a woman did anger me. This is a indeed a difficult subject to be objective about in general.
People seem to be in two camps:
1. do-gooders – those who wish the government to interfere in the market and legislate equal pay between the genders
2. free-marketeers – who believe that the market should be left alone to sort out remuneration – and that whatever equilibrium is obtained is inherently fair.
Kris is most definately in camp 2.
CB, PF and many others are in camp 1.
This kind of debate seems to be one of those uncomfortable debates involving political correctness, where those in camp 1 deem themselves to be on the moral high ground and simultaneously deem those in camp 2 as the evil ones.
I see the situation basically as follows:
There are two types of people in the workplace – those who are going to still have babies and those who are not. Generally that means GenX and GenY women vs men.
Of course, to be precise, it is those who may take paid maternity/paternity leave vs those who will not. My husband was immensely disgusted to discover that while there was something called ‘paternity leave’ in Australia, it existed in name only, i.e. it was actually UNPAID paternity leave! He then challenged them (his employer) as to howcome there was such a thing as paid maternity leave, yet not paid paternity leave! The company squirmed its way out of that one by stating that paternity leave could be paid as well, as long as he was the primary carer of the infant.
So it turns out that in practise, because of the “primary carer” card played by employers, that paid leave is only ever granted to women (and not to men) upon having a baby quite simply because the mother will nearly always be the primary carer of the infant.
So when a genX/genY woman interviews for a job,immediately the company will see that there is an inherent ‘extra overhead’ associated with this person in that she may use paid maternity leave whenever she has a baby.
Now the prospective employer will always have to factor this into his calculations when making a remuneration offer – and if he doesnt he probably should not be in business, and wont be for long.
I can almost hear the campers in 1 holding their breath in disbelief ….
Look – i just like to call a spade a spade! First of all it is a nearly impossible task to compare “a man” with “a woman” in the context of them competing for one particular job. Simply because thats impossible – one cannot even compare two men with each other because all are individuals whose skills and personal circumstances will ALWAYS differ, resulting in different performance levels in a particular job.
A woman may often be more skilled than a man for a particular job, but her position in the family as primary carer will/should nearly always mean that she would not be able to throw as many hours into the job per week as the man generally would be able to (because he in turn has a wonderful wife who is the primary carer in his family
In this hypothetical example i am assuming that the particular job is one where the skills required are not of such a nature such that it would favour one gender over the other.
In this case therefore, the fact that women – in general – are not able to put as many hours into a job as a male counterpart could would then logically lead to men, on average, being made higher offers for such positions. These kind of positions would typically be those in middle- and upper management.
In lower paid jobs, where a person gets paid by the hour and does repetitive type work, i can pretty much guarentee you that men and women will always get offered/paid exactly the same!
I dont know whether i’ve explained myself well enough here or not, but i have to admit that i’m with Kris here on this one. I think he’s explained why women currently earn a little less than men in a logical way. It is indeed a kind of ‘insurance’ against the (very real) possibility of having to pay out maternity leave. It would in fact be ludicrous if women on average were earning exactly the same as men were in middle and upper managment positions despite the fact that they were able to put in less hours (due to maternity leave plus less hours due to family commitments etc). In fact this would mean that women were earning more per hour than men were. Would that be okay???
It all comes down to what is the average hourly rate which is paid…
I believe that for a similarly skilled woman and man – they would be earning pretty much the same rate per hour. Men only out earn women because they are generally in a position where they can work more hours per year than most women can.
That’s my opinion because that’s what logic and life experience has shown me.
Equal pay for equal work. Now there’s a new idea!
Unless a prespective employee is exceptionally exceptional, what employer in his or her right mind will employ someone they think they will have to pay at least 6 months for not being there.
If the employer thinks they cannot discount that (considerable) loss, through lower wages, they won’t.
Women that think these are high-fiveingly good changes are falling straight into the trap thats been set. The employment market will turn on a dime, women will become more unemployable and inequality bells will then be deafening.
Don @38:
I assume that your question is actually directed at my post?
[The order of the last 7 or 8 posts has been totally confustigated. my post was at #37 and now sits at #40]
Your question is a good one, and i’ve thought about this one myself.
I would have to say that for the kind of example i was considering, i.e. a middle to upper management kind of position, i dont believe that there would be any difference in pay coniderations, as maternity leave would not be an issue there.
In lower level jobs, i actually think that older women may actually be offered LESS money than GenX/GenY women, but this does not have anything to do with maternity leave or the absence thereof. I think in this instance it is often a genuine. case of discrimination in that more youthful women are in more demand because of the perceived benefits of their relative attractiveness.
But i’m just guessing here based on my perception and experience.
Reading my above post (43) again i see it may be a bit ambiguous.
What i meant was for a middle/upper management position, there should/would be no difference in salary between men and older (Baby Boomer) women.
So yes – i do believe that older women would earn more (in total) than younger women, simply because they would be able to work longer/more hours – on average – than younger women.
but again, the hourly rates would all be the same!
Many of you have missed the point. It has nothing to do with who does what and the value of each individuals efforts, regardlees of gender.
The EMPLOYER’s choice of who he or she will employ will be made MORE clear and it will be based on costs.
As per my comment above, female unemployment will increase and the female /male employment ratio will widen negatively towards women.
I will find it increasingly difficult to employ women under these conditions, not because I am a chauvenist pig but because it just doesn’t stack up. I’m not going to have to pay a pregnant man to not be at work.
These are popularist policies designed for women to sing ‘yay’ with their votes, but the benefits will be for the very few.
“According to the Herald Sun, “Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) president Sharan Burrow admitted the push for a $100 a week pay rise for 200,000 community sector workers was not small.”
Kris – minor mis-calc. Your $20m calc was per week, which equates to $1.04 B per year, the cost being $52 per person per year increase in taxes, but hey, who’s counting? $1…$52… its still our money.
If women were not happy with their wages then why has the percentage growth of women in the work force been higher than the percentage growth of men in the work force (see Sayce’s graph)?
Raised the topic of paid maternity leave with my wife who is a State Mng for a international company. I suggested that it would be tough for S to M companies to have to keep a job open for somenone who may or may not return to work and employ someone else for a potentially unknown period of time – ohh and someone who probably is less skilled in that role and therefor probably less productive. Not many people who want to work full time only want to do that for 6 months or whatever either.
Her comment? Don’t employ women of child bearing age! Most companies can’t afford to run the risk.
Mmmm – I agree, but as this is Policitically incorrect to say (according to the left leaning, feminist groups as well as other just plain socially minded without an understanding of economics and a certain Govt Dept dealing with discrimination), I’ll just keep that view to myself!
Fortunately our sole female employee (in a company of 4), has just got engaged and announced she has at last found a man who also does not want children. Suffice to say, there was a small sigh of relief in the boardroom!
I know for a fact I am not alone in thinking like this.
This, combined with equal pay may make employing females in some occupations and busnesses just plain unviable and/or could easily introduce subtle discrimination openly practiced by Head Hunters, HR Managers and the Recruitment Industry. We all know that they do it already by and large. So what is a bit more?
Imagine the rejection letter commencing ” We regret to inform you that you have been unsuccessful this time due to your lack of ten consecutive years in the industry. As we mentioned, our client stipulated that this was to be a criteria we recruited on due to the nature of the everchanging technology/ roles/ science/ whatever in the industry. ….”
MMmmmmm … welcome to the real world!
So the good ol’ dinosaurs are still alive and well and are living in my computer! The chief economist of the National Bank of NZ trotted out this same old chestnut at least twenty years ago and received much the same reaction as this latest gem from Money Morning. We all know that of lies, damn lies and statistics, statistics are the best way of obscuring the truth – pay rates and advancement/promotion practices are far more complex and are driven by factors other than just “the market” . Let’s be real – payrate disparity does not happen just at the beginning of a person’s working career, but is more likely to appear and expand over the course of that career because (often white male) employers relate better to those employees similar to themselves (in other words, employers are just as likely not to be economically rational as the rest of us – let’s just look at the multi-million dollar remmuneration packets for some of those CEOs). There are plenty of research findings to the effect that women are often more loyal, work harder, are more productive and make more sacrifices than do their male counterparts yet do not get paid as much. Leave it to the market? I don’t think so!
Leave a Comment
Comment moderation policy: Port Phillip Publishing supports free speech and frank and open conversation. But we reserve the right to modify or delete your comments if we consider them to be offensive or in violation of any laws, including Australia's anti-discrimination laws