I'm sorry the research you quote is for men and women doing "similiar"work-not the same.
Come on, don't play semantics. You're a doctor - you know how research / statistics / etc works.
It would be impossible to conduct any study looking at
identical work only: apart from the extreme difficulty (impossibility?) of accurately singling out people who perform
identical work across employers, you would end up with a sample size that is way too small to be statistically signficant, would only be able to conduct the study in one industry segment at a time (which may not be representative of society as a whole), etc.
If you tried to do this you'd have to limit your study to a single employer at a time, and the results would be different for every employer (and wouldn't tell you anything meaningful). So, you instead run your study across multiple employers in each industry segment examining people in as similar roles as possible (correcting for age / education / whatever), and then aggregate these results across all industry segments to give you a decent sample size and a
useful and meaningful result. I can't see any particular flaw in this methodology - it certainly beats trying to look at people in exactly the same job (for the reason I described above) - unless you can somehow explain how this biases the study "towards" women?
Look at the figures for first year medical graduate salaries-women are supposedly paid $500 a year less than men.I dont know one State or Territory where there is a different pay rate in first year for men cf women.
I can't explain that either (zero knowledge of the industry, amongst other things), but with due respect, a specific unexplained example does not outweigh an entire (actually, many entire) research studies.
I'm not sure why you are criticising my googling skills. I can find similar articles but they don't impress me at all.
Perhaps I was wrong to criticise your Googling skills - I assumed you had not taken the time to Google it (or similar) and read the results, whereas instead it sounds like you have but are choosing to ignore what you've read. If that's the case then so be it - if you choose to ignore the evidence in favour of your opinion then I find that disappointing, but I also doubt any amount of argument from me is going to convince you to change your mind.
The Sydney article concludes that "The persistence of the gender pay gap continues to be largely related to work being undervalued in female-dominated industries of employment. "
I don't see your point? The study is looking at gender pay gap between men and women performing similar work. The above quote is highlighting that this gap is biggest in female dominated industries.
It isn't a research paper, it is a briefing sheet useful to lobbyists and compiled by a who's who of union organisations.
Err, I think you might want to go back and re-think the "it isn't a research paper, it is a briefing sheet" statement.
The link I posted is a brief summary of 2010 gender-pay-gap findings coming out of the "Australia at Work" study, which is "...a longitudinal study of 8,341 Australians... contacted once a year for five years (2007 to 2011) to find out how their working lives were changing" being conducted out of the Business School at the University of Sydney. I'm not sure what you consider a research paper to be, but that sure sounds like one to me.
And making comments like "...compiled by a who's who of union organisations" does not help your argument. Apart from the fact that I'm not sure on what basis you make that claim, it just makes it sound like you're trying to appeal to people's emotions when the data does not back up your point of view.
The other article is uncontrolled for the workers' work history.
I realise that - I specifically said "[the second fact sheet] is also interesting, but
is raw data rather than results controlled for age / education / etc.". I just posted it because I found the raw data interesting and thought others might too.
Unless the government centrally controls all wages and forces social workers to earn as much those barriers will remain. Work that has high barriers to entry, is dirty or dangerous will always have a premium financially in a market economy and traditionally has been more skewed towards male participation.
I think you've missed the point - the study I linked is comparing men and women
performing similar work (and finding, on average, a ~8.5% pay gap between them), not men and women performing entirely different jobs.
Believe me, as a company director if we can find senior female professionals willing to take on boards roles they will be snapped up in a second.
That's great - but you are not necessarily representive of everyone (unfortunately, by the sounds of it).
PS, to both drron and rechoboam: I hope none of the above comes across as personal / rude / etc - that is not the intention. I'm just being blunt, which is my way. I will argue till I'm blue in the face to try and change your minds, but I still respect your right to have a different opinion to me
