The Gender Wage Gap - What is it?

[Forty Two]

Two Pinnochios from the Washington Post to those still advancing the notion of the Gender Wage Gap -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... ed-by-men/

[DaveDodo007]

Two Pinnochios from the Washington Post to those still advancing the notion of the Gender Wage Gap -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... ed-by-men/

You're wasting your time, facts and evidence are tools of the Patriarchy so just listen and believe.

[Seth]

...nonexistant.

[Forty Two]

I would think that if a company, say an accountancy firm, could get the same job done with 23% less in labor costs, they'd do it right away.

The notion that women are paid 23% less for the same job with equal experience and qualifications seems to me to be an extraordinary claim. It would suggest that for most jobs, companies are willing to pay nearly 1/4 more for the same labor. In an age where "labor costs" are among the first things to be cut in a restructuring or otherwise to save money, wouldn't companies hire as many women as they could get?

[rachelbean]

I know that I currently earn one of the highest salaries in my office for programmers, and I know because I've asked around. I also looked around the industry and took that into consideration when requesting my salary (which I requested higher than I expected, because negotiation should always be expected). I also got a raise not too long ago because that was part of my negotiation when getting hired as well, but they made it even larger than I requested because of performance.

That was not always the case. I have worked places where the guys I worked with earned more than me for the same job (or were hired above me after I trained them). However, once I grew up a little and also read a few articles and listened to some conversations explaining how and why women are often paid less I decided to make sure it didn't happen any more, and as far as I have been able to work out, it hasn't.

Girls/women are largely expected (or feel they are) to be compliant and agreeable and will often go to great lengths to avoid a 'bitch' or demanding persona, but often to their own detriment. They often take the first offer they are given within a job and are much less likely to ask for raises, or push the point than men are. There are a lot of good articles and studies about it, here is one: https://hbr.org/2003/10/nice-girls-dont-ask/

So I think a big help would be for parents and teachers to educate young women on these issues and prepare them for the real world. It is important to know that you don't get what you need or deserve most the time without asking. Companies aren't charities and if you accept their initial offer, they aren't going to offer you more just because that's where the last guy ended up.

[cronus]

It is a pity that women have to be extra pushy and over-assertive like men to get anywhere rather than men becoming more agreeable. Something flawed in the overall human character, being amplified rather than delineated.

[Forty Two]

I know that I currently earn one of the highest salaries in my office for programmers, and I know because I've asked around. I also looked around the industry and took that into consideration when requesting my salary (which I requested higher than I expected, because negotiation should always be expected). I also got a raise not too long ago because that was part of my negotiation when getting hired as well, but they made it even larger than I requested because of performance.

That was not always the case. I have worked places where the guys I worked with earned more than me for the same job (or were hired above me after I trained them). However, once I grew up a little and also read a few articles and listened to some conversations explaining how and why women are often paid less I decided to make sure it didn't happen any more, and as far as I have been able to work out, it hasn't.

Girls/women are largely expected (or feel they are) to be compliant and agreeable and will often go to great lengths to avoid a 'bitch' or demanding persona, but often to their own detriment. They often take the first offer they are given within a job and are much less likely to ask for raises, or push the point than men are. There are a lot of good articles and studies about it, here is one: https://hbr.org/2003/10/nice-girls-dont-ask/

So I think a big help would be for parents and teachers to educate young women on these issues and prepare them for the real world. It is important to know that you don't get what you need or deserve most the time without asking. Companies aren't charities and if you accept their initial offer, they aren't going to offer you more just because that's where the last guy ended up.

That is very good personal advice, and it's advice I've followed as well. I learned as a young pup that if you don't ask, you don't receive, and if they offer you X, you ask for X+1. They can only say no. If they say no and are willing for you to walk out without another offer, then you've reached the top. The mistake a lot of people, not just women, make is thinking that if they negotiate or ask for more, then they risk losing the offer altogether. That kind of reaction to a counter offer or counterproposal is very, very rare. Usually, almost always, they say "look, this is all we can pay. That's the top." And, you still have the ability to accept.

The thing that I've gathered, however, is that women's reticence to negotiate is only a very small factor in the comparison of men's and women's wages. The numbers in the US -- seem to show that for the same job, with the same level of experience and qualifications, men and women are paid the same.

I have noticed women don't like being thought of as a bitch, but I think that men can very often be thought of as assholes in the workplace. There seems to be sort of a generally accepted idea that assertive women are thought as a bitch but assertive men are well-liked and respected. I haven't found that in my years of working - what I've found is that overly 'assertive" people are called bitches and assholes, but men and women who are just "assertive" (strong, but honorable and fair) are well respected. A jerk is a jerk of whatever sex.

[Forty Two]

It is a pity that women have to be extra pushy and over-assertive like men to get anywhere rather than men becoming more agreeable. Something flawed in the overall human character, being amplified rather than delineated.

Men are extra pushy and over-assertive? I've not noticed that. I've been working for a long time and being pushy and rude hasn't seemed to get people ahead. Rather, being productive, hard-working, and able to effectively deal with people is the most effective.

I guess a lot of it has to do with one's definition of pushy and overly assertive, too. So, I'm not trying to pick a fight here, or an argument. On this point, I think it's subjective and none of us is "wrong," per se.

I just know that i've encountered many more male coworkers I've characterized as assholes than female coworkers (or superiors) I've characterized as bitches. That's just my own anecdote and means very little to nothing as to the general climate out there. I tend to like people, and I am very good at not taking things other people do and say personally, so I tend not to be bothered by a lot of stuff that may well bother a lot of other people.

It's very interesting, though, the human dynamic here. I do hesitate to characterize one gender, men, as generally disagreeable, extra pushy and overly-assertive. I don't think that's fair.

[DaveDodo007]

Women under 30 are now earning more than men. So it will become something to boast about rather than a equality issue.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... g-more-men

See I told you.

Also reported here.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... g-more-men

Minister for Women and Equalities Nicky Morgan said she was 'delighted'.

[Forty Two]

The fairness or unfairness depends on what the basis for it is. I suspect that young women outearning young men is a result of the fact that women are and have been for about 20 years, the significant majority of college students and college graduates. Men are more likely to be high school dropouts and to either not go to or complete college. That may account for a lot of the difference.

[Mr.Samsa]

So I think a big help would be for parents and teachers to educate young women on these issues and prepare them for the real world. It is important to know that you don't get what you need or deserve most the time without asking. Companies aren't charities and if you accept their initial offer, they aren't going to offer you more just because that's where the last guy ended up.

Just note that it's not always the best idea for women to try negotiating. The problem is that not only are women taught from a young age that they should be compliant and submissive (so are less likely to try negotiating) but they are also expected to be compliant and submissive by others, so when they try negotiating they are often viewed as 'bitchy', 'bossy' or 'pushy'.

This all results in women often being punished for negotiating and obviously when someone is in need of a job or needs to secure the job they do have, risking it by trying to negotiate or ask for a pay rise might not be the best idea.

On the topic in general, Christina Hoff Sommers has been debunked so many times that she's viewed as the social science version of Deepak Chopra. I've never understood why people think that pointing out the difference between the adjusted and unadjusted wage gap means that the unadjusted wage gap doesn't exist. As researchers in the field are always careful to point out, saying that the gap can be explain by hours worked or career choice doesn't mean that we have nothing left to worry about - you have to ask why those differences exist. Some of the difference might be innate or biological, but we also know a lot of it isn't. But obviously even if we ignore all of that, we're still left with the consensus view that the adjusted wage gap exists and it hovers around 5-8%, which is massive!

Let's get some actual science on the topic from people who think the wage gap is a "myth" - link to a few papers and let's see what people working in the field actually say.

[Forty Two]

So I think a big help would be for parents and teachers to educate young women on these issues and prepare them for the real world. It is important to know that you don't get what you need or deserve most the time without asking. Companies aren't charities and if you accept their initial offer, they aren't going to offer you more just because that's where the last guy ended up.

Just note that it's not always the best idea for women to try negotiating. The problem is that not only are women taught from a young age that they should be compliant and submissive (so are less likely to try negotiating) but they are also expected to be compliant and submissive by others, so when they try negotiating they are often viewed as 'bitchy', 'bossy' or 'pushy'.

Based on the numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and such (see the videos posted above), it does not appear that negotiation gives men higher salaries in the same jobs. Men and women, for the same job, with the same qualifications and experience, get paid about the same.

This all results in women often being punished for negotiating and obviously when someone is in need of a job or needs to secure the job they do have, risking it by trying to negotiate or ask for a pay rise might not be the best idea.

There is almost never a risk in asking for more money. I mean, you don't get an offer from an employer -- "we'd like to offer you the job, and we pay $10 per hour," and then have that offer pulled off the table if you say, "I am very excited about the job, but I would be more comfortable if the pay was more along the lines of $12 per hour." The employer will generally either give you the extra money, offer something in between, or simply say "I'm sorry, but this is the pay rate for this position." Sometimes there is wiggle room, and sometimes not. But, employers dont' get all pissy and say "Oh, you want more money? Well, tough luck, buddy, now we're not offering you the job at all!"

On the topic in general, Christina Hoff Sommers has been debunked so many times that she's viewed as the social science version of Deepak Chopra.

I'd love to see the debunkings. Have a link? the Gender Wage gap of 77 cents on the dollar has been so thoroughly debunked that it's embarrassing that it's even advanced in any way.

I've never understood why people think that pointing out the difference between the adjusted and unadjusted wage gap means that the unadjusted wage gap doesn't exist.

It's when people say "Women still make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes for the same work" that is bothersome. If it was advanced that "women make 96 cents on the dollar for every dollar a man makes" then one might be closer to the mark, and then a little bit of negotiating and such might close the remaining gap.

As researchers in the field are always careful to point out, saying that the gap can be explain by hours worked or career choice doesn't mean that we have nothing left to worry about - you have to ask why those differences exist.

Sure, and that is a great discussion. But, first, we have to understand that women are not underpaid 23% for the same job.



Hence the myth propagated by the above video. I mean, come on. If that woman discovered that the man in the cubicle across from her was doing the same job as her and she was paid 78% of what that guy made, then she should see human resources. She could also report the matter to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which would start an investigation and ask the employer to provide their salary figures for men and women. Or, she could sue the company for discrimination under state and federal civil rights laws and failure to abide by the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

Some of the difference might be innate or biological, but we also know a lot of it isn't. But obviously even if we ignore all of that, we're still left with the consensus view that the adjusted wage gap exists and it hovers around 5-8%, which is massive!

Link? Even if the consensus is 5% to 8%, then that is certainly is far less "massive" than 77 cents or 78 cents on the dollar. It puts the lie to that figure.

And, since the real gap is between the jobs men and women take -- see this article in the Atlantic -- http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... ap/276367/ it's time to stop allowing this figure to be advanced as evidence of a "patriarchy" or a systematic discrimination against women.

Heck, people are out there holding demonstrations in the form of bake sales where men are charged more than women for the same things, because of the 77 cents on the dollar figure. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/2 ... 25692.html - is this anything to be teaching children?

Let's get some actual science on the topic from people who think the wage gap is a "myth" - link to a few papers and let's see what people working in the field actually say.

Link?

Here, we find that the White House pays women 88 cents on the dollar for every dollar a man makes there. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... y_gap.html

And, what is the explanation - through all the twisting and backpeddling, you can see that it's all very reasonable. There are different jobs being filled, and women tend to be in the lower paying fields and men in the higher paying ones. The White House is clear in all that muddle that they think they're paying men and women the same for the same job. So, what needs to be fixed?

[Mr.Samsa]

Just note that it's not always the best idea for women to try negotiating. The problem is that not only are women taught from a young age that they should be compliant and submissive (so are less likely to try negotiating) but they are also expected to be compliant and submissive by others, so when they try negotiating they are often viewed as 'bitchy', 'bossy' or 'pushy'.

Based on the numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and such (see the videos posted above), it does not appear that negotiation gives men higher salaries in the same jobs. Men and women, for the same job, with the same qualifications and experience, get paid about the same.

Have you actually read the report or are you just going off what Sommers' says? It simply highlights multiple factors that make up the adjusted wage gap but the gap still exists. Women, for the same job, with the same qualifications and experience, get paid around 5-8% less - that's what is called the adjusted wage gap. You won't find a single academic paper that denies that the adjusted wage gap exists.

There's a decent overview here and the CONSAD report (the wiki page isn't too bad either). The conclusion from that linked study is:

This report draws on a wealth of quantitative studies which calculate adjusted gender pay gaps based on income
statistics. The report also draws on qualitative research on segregation in the labour market, female career development
and gender roles in the professional and private spheres. A mapping of national research studies on the adjusted gender
pay gap finds that it ranges between 4% in Denmark and 30% in Cyprus. The ‘discriminatory component’ – which cannot
be attributed to observed characteristics – is found to explain the biggest part of the unadjusted gender pay gap in Cyprus,
Italy and Portugal.

Interpreting the adjusted gap as being the only discriminatory component, however, falls short of the reality. In fact,
many studies find that individual characteristics, such as the level of education, tend to explain less and less of the
observed gap, particularly in a context where the level of female education has been increasing. Rather, the major reasons
for this gap are very often related to both horizontal and vertical segregation – or the fact that women tend to choose
lower-paid professions, reach a ‘glass ceiling’ in their careers, or have their jobs valued less favourably. The origins of
these factors could be judged as being discriminatory in themselves – that is, when they are rooted in gender stereotypes
of male and female occupations.

And from the CONSAD report:

There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the
wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively
account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and
thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent.

Those are some of the biggest studies on the topic and the lowest possible estimate is around 5% (and as the first report is careful to point out, the rest of the unadjusted wage gap shouldn't be assumed to be a result of non-discrimination processes).

This all results in women often being punished for negotiating and obviously when someone is in need of a job or needs to secure the job they do have, risking it by trying to negotiate or ask for a pay rise might not be the best idea.

There is almost never a risk in asking for more money. I mean, you don't get an offer from an employer -- "we'd like to offer you the job, and we pay $10 per hour," and then have that offer pulled off the table if you say, "I am very excited about the job, but I would be more comfortable if the pay was more along the lines of $12 per hour." The employer will generally either give you the extra money, offer something in between, or simply say "I'm sorry, but this is the pay rate for this position." Sometimes there is wiggle room, and sometimes not. But, employers dont' get all pissy and say "Oh, you want more money? Well, tough luck, buddy, now we're not offering you the job at all!"

And that's fine, but it doesn't explain why men are often rewarded for trying to negotiate and women (using the same approach, to the same person, in the same job, asking for the same thing, etc) are punished.

On the topic in general, Christina Hoff Sommers has been debunked so many times that she's viewed as the social science version of Deepak Chopra.

I'd love to see the debunkings. Have a link? the Gender Wage gap of 77 cents on the dollar has been so thoroughly debunked that it's embarrassing that it's even advanced in any way.

You won't find a single debunking of the unadjusted wage gap as it can't be "debunked", it's just a fact. As for debunkings of Sommers' in general, mostly she's not discussed as she has no qualifications or relevance in the fields she tries to talk about (in the same way you won't find a physicist writing a paper about Deepak Chopra) but the debunkings are usually aimed at her incredibly poor understanding of what the wage gap is, her redefining of feminism so that her brand of anti-feminism is now the "true" feminism, and I think she supports the SSSM conspiracy theory.

I've never understood why people think that pointing out the difference between the adjusted and unadjusted wage gap means that the unadjusted wage gap doesn't exist.

It's when people say "Women still make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes for the same work" that is bothersome. If it was advanced that "women make 96 cents on the dollar for every dollar a man makes" then one might be closer to the mark, and then a little bit of negotiating and such might close the remaining gap.

Just note that practically nobody ever says this. Seriously. I know you'll laugh and say, "People say it all the time" but I've had this discussion at least a hundred times with a hundred different people. Maybe you'll prove me wrong but to each of those people I've asked for a link to somebody saying this, and so far nobody has. They just say that people say it all the time. The closest I've ever gotten was that somebody linked to Obama saying something similar but they only looked at a quote taken out of context when the longer quote says something completely different, which is that he was saying that full-time working men and women have a gap of around 23% - and that's true. The other reply I usually get are news headlines who make a similar claim but the actual article goes into more detail and will explain the adjusted and unadjusted wage gaps.

If you google "77cents wage gap", you will pretty much online find people "debunking" the claim and nobody actually making the claim.

And just to be clear, saying the wage gap can be reduced to 96c is really stretching it. You'd be taking the lowest possible estimate at 95c when really it's somewhere between that and 90c. And no, there are no other known factors that can close the gap.

As researchers in the field are always careful to point out, saying that the gap can be explain by hours worked or career choice doesn't mean that we have nothing left to worry about - you have to ask why those differences exist.

Sure, and that is a great discussion. But, first, we have to understand that women are not underpaid 23% for the same job.

Can you please link to some studies? I don't really view videos as credible sources.

Hence the myth propagated by the above video. I mean, come on. If that woman discovered that the man in the cubicle across from her was doing the same job as her and she was paid 78% of what that guy made, then she should see human resources. She could also report the matter to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which would start an investigation and ask the employer to provide their salary figures for men and women. Or, she could sue the company for discrimination under state and federal civil rights laws and failure to abide by the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

But they aren't paid 23% less, that's the unadjusted wage gap. The discrimination in that component refers to more general societal processes. They are, however, paid 5-8% less and no they can't really report it because they aren't explicitly being paid less because they're women. The biases that lead to the discrimination here are often unconscious ones and so the employer rationalises it by saying, "They just aren't as qualified" or "They just aren't as competent", because that's generally how society views women and it bleeds into the workplace.

For example, if you send two identical CVs in to an employer, one with a male name and one with a female name, what do you think will happen? If you said that they will be judged based on their merits with no hint of bias or discrimination, then you'd be wrong. The male-named CV was significantly more likely to receive callbacks, offered higher starting salaries, and judged to be more competent and able to handle the rigors of the job. The CVs are identical.

So how would someone even begin to sue on that basis? The employer, as far as they know, are simply judging the quality of someone's attributes and assigning them what they think is a fair wage. It's pretty much impossible in the real world that you'll have two applicants with the exact same background, qualifications, interests, etc, that go for the same job, are both hired, and one is paid more than the other, so there is no chance in the real world to argue on such a basis.

Some of the difference might be innate or biological, but we also know a lot of it isn't. But obviously even if we ignore all of that, we're still left with the consensus view that the adjusted wage gap exists and it hovers around 5-8%, which is massive!

Link? Even if the consensus is 5% to 8%, then that is certainly is far less "massive" than 77 cents or 78 cents on the dollar. It puts the lie to that figure.

I've linked above but no, there is no lie as the unadjusted wage gap is still a hugely important measure of discrimination and inequality.

And, since the real gap

Both the unadjusted and adjusted gaps are "real" gaps.

is between the jobs men and women take -- see this article in the Atlantic -- http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... ap/276367/ it's time to stop allowing this figure to be advanced as evidence of a "patriarchy" or a systematic discrimination against women.

The Atlantic isn't really a credible source but even if we accept that claim, your conclusion makes no sense. If the biggest difference is the choice of career then we need to ask why they choose different careers. Part of that explanation is that women face significant hostility and discrimination in certain fields so they are more likely to drop out, which is the current problem in computer science and engineering. Also I'm not sure why you've put a scientific concept (patriarchy) in scare quotes there?

Heck, people are out there holding demonstrations in the form of bake sales where men are charged more than women for the same things, because of the 77 cents on the dollar figure. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/2 ... 25692.html - is this anything to be teaching children?

That's because the 77c figure is, again, a hugely important measure of discrimination and inequality.

Let's get some actual science on the topic from people who think the wage gap is a "myth" - link to a few papers and let's see what people working in the field actually say.

Link?

...I'm asking you for the links.

Here, we find that the White House pays women 88 cents on the dollar for every dollar a man makes there. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... y_gap.html

And, what is the explanation - through all the twisting and backpeddling, you can see that it's all very reasonable. There are different jobs being filled, and women tend to be in the lower paying fields and men in the higher paying ones. The White House is clear in all that muddle that they think they're paying men and women the same for the same job. So, what needs to be fixed?

And that's called the unadjusted wage gap. However, when we take into account all of the factors like hours worked, career choice, pregnancies, negotiation styles, etc etc, we find that women are still paid 5-8% less. And even before we do that, we have to accept the scientific consensus that the difference between the unadjusted wage gap and the adjusted wage gap cannot be viewed as a non-discrimination vs discrimination distinction - both contain elements of discrimination. If we like we can view it more as covert vs overt discrimination, in the sense that things like career choice starts early with things like math teachers inducing stereotype threat into women whereas the adjusted gap largely accounts for things like the CV study I linked to above.

As I mentioned in my last post, you need to link to some academic sources to back up your claims. You can't make a massive claim like "The unadjusted wage gap has been debunked!" or "It's a lie!" without citing the scientists who have done the work and agree with your conclusions. If the best you have are videos and articles by laymen that basically say that they don't understand the literature, then that's not evidence, that's accepting defeat. So come on, link to some academic articles arguing that the wage gap doesn't exist or even that the unadjusted wage gap is "debunked" or doesn't tell us anything about discrimination, otherwise it's just going to be a pointless back and forth where I present all the scientific evidence that refutes your claim and you ignore it whilst linking to youtube people saying, "Nuh uh!".

And just a heads up, if no scientific articles are forthcoming then I don't see any point in continuing this discussion.

[JimC]

In many employment sectors in Australia, such as education, public service, medical etc., wages are set by industrial agreements, with no gender difference involved. I would say that the percentage of jobs where one can negotiate a salary is relatively small. It would not surprise me to find significant gender differences in those cases, for reasons others have already mentioned.
However, in most cases in Oz, if 2 people are doing identical jobs, they should and generally would receive the same income. Being out of the workforce to have children would have the biggest single impact on the average difference in wages between men and women I suspect.

[Forty Two]

And just a heads up, if no scientific articles are forthcoming then I don't see any point in continuing this discussion.

Honestly, I don't care much for you passive-aggressive bullshit, like this little comment of yours. And of course, you led off with the "and did you even read the report..." nonsense. Horse shit nonsense. Why make such silly comments? I mean, it's a discussion -- if you happened to be right, then great. You've established a position, and backed it up with a winning argument, and maybe persuaded someone to your position. Why insult, by insinuating your opposition isn't just wrong, but deliberately so (by not reading the article) or stupid because their argument seems as if they haven't read the article? And, then closing with the "if no scientific articles are forthcoming...." -- yes yes, dictate the manner of the retort, why don't you? Nanana boo boo.

In any case --

One of the best studies on the wage gap was released in 2009 by the U.S. Department of Labor. It examined more than 50 peer-reviewed papers and concluded that the 23-cent wage gap "may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers." In the past, women's groups have ignored or explained away such findings. http://www.consad.com/content/reports/G ... Report.pdf "the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers."

So, the 77 cents FOR THE SAME WORK figure is a complete and total myth. It's advanced in order to lobby or protest for "corrective action" which the Department of Labor's report plainly says IS NOT WARRANTED. President Obama reiterate the bogus claim that women earn 77 cents on the dollar FOR THE SAME WORK, and yet his own Labor Secretary -- a member of the President's Cabinet (closest advisers) has known that it is not true for years.

If there is a few percentage point difference in the numbers, then it still does not warrant the continued use of the 77 cent figure, which has been debunked. Moreover, we -- quite simply -- have no good evidence to show that any remaining 5% figure is a result of sex discrimination in the workplace.

Some of the information you posted relates to the whole idea that the underlying system is sexist, undervaluing professions women go into -- like, administrative assistants and nurses are underpaid in relation to professions that males tend to dominate. The material you posted there is speculative, and nonspecific. It just makes it impossible for anything not to be sexist -- the entire underlying system is sexist and so no matter what women are downtrodden. The only reason secretaries are paid as little as they are is because mostly women went into the profession. And, engineers are paid more because it's mostly male. If that's the argument being made, then there is no argument or debate possible. There's no way to counter that, and no way to prove it. It's an unfalsifiable claim.