The pay gap

[MontyGlee]

What's wrong with these figures?

I know this article is clearly designed to represent a skewed and controversial position (the magazine's raison d'être after all), but what's the real position?

www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/cut-the-crap-about-the-gender-pay-gap/15484#.U9eCktm9LCR

It would be good to see the source data - no one seems to be linking to it. The source of the original story about women earning 13% less than men in London appears to have been the Labour party spinning an exclusive story to the Evening Standard here:
www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/exclusive-pay-gap-widens-as-women-earn-13-per-cent-less-than-men-in-london-9625610.html
It is later picked up by the Guardian and other media, citing the original Evening Standard article here:
www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2014/jul/25/gender-paygap-widening-good-for-business
The ES article is confusing as it says Experts say, "The trend is possibly being fuelled by bigger bonuses going to men in the City, while women are being pushed more than ever into low-paid, part-time jobs", but then goes on to quote Shadow women’s minister Gloria De Piero saying, "Whether you’re a chief executive or hairdresser, women across the capital are being paid less than men for doing the same or equivalent work". These are very different statements!

Like any issue, I suspect people use whatever comes to hand to back up something they already believe in. It doesn't surprise me for an instant that there is a movement to discredit the gender pay gap. Equally - and as per the 'Nirvana' thread - I also see that some activists might be tempted to resist any good news.

I have just finished an article on this today. The figures come from the latest ONS salary report. It says that there has been a tiny overall increase in the gender pay gap for the uk as a whole but London is showing as a 13 percent increase since last year.
It is thought that city bonuses are to blamefor this disparity. This is the first increase of this type in five years.
Even though the change is slight the figure of women earning 80 percent of mens incomes still holds. It has been this way for years. The increase hasn't changed that.

Do you have a link to the Salary Report Whatdoes? I can't find it on the ONS website. The closest I have found is the UK Labour Market, July 2014, but this does not seem to include any Gender data.

Without source data, it is difficult to validate the Spiked article, or indeed the Evening Standard article.

I've emailed Gloria De Piero asking if she can point me at the source data...

What a load of bollocks that article is! It seems to be trying to say move along there's no problem here re. gender pay gap but all of the stats they quote in the article clearly say there is one!

Bizarre.

Oh whoops just realised there is more below that big banner through the middle! Will read on...

Nope still not seeing it.

Christ almighty the comments though

With my stats hat on, what on earth is this paragraph trying to say?

Last week in the UK, headlines declared that women in London earn 13 per cent less than men and that the pay gap is widening. Not only do such claims not stand up to scrutiny – even worse, they actually hide a far more positive story about women’s pay […] For women up to the age of 40, median hourly earnings rose faster than for people in any other group, increasing by 81.7 per cent, and as a result the pay gap for this cohort went down from 25.1 per cent to 12 per cent.

The pay gap of 13% doesn't stand up to scrutiny because in women under 40 the pay gap is now 12%?!

Actually, I think it's true that in some circumstances in some industries the pay gap is no longer there (particularly early career), but it definitely widens as you get more senior, and definitely once kids are involved.

I know it's nonsense isn't it.

I like the way women under 40 are separated out because of course things are better for the cohort of women pre children than post. And not just because they've had a year off either. As you rightly point out and I read it after I wrote it too

I've heard the stats before (that women prechildren in rich cities earn more than men) but the questions that aren't asked here are 1) why are more women than men pursuing low paid careers and 2) why are more mothers than fathers working part time after couples have children?

Third line of article quote "and women experiencing no more practical hindrances than men to achieving anything they want in life"

Er - babies anyone?

the whole thing is badly researched, incorrect and frankly shit stirring bollocks.

Succinctly put, westmorland