Group items tagged

An excellent visual data story describing the gender pay gap (in America) and debunking the claim that there is no real difference in the amount men and women get paid. The pay gap varies depending on the occupation, working hours, education attainment, experience, and geography. That explains part of the difference in pay between men and women, but not all of it. And even though most economists agree that after adjusting for age, education, experience and other variables there's still an unexplained gap, there are voices who argue that the gender pay gap is a myth. Pay gap deniers purport that women's choices, rather than discrimination, cause the pay gap between women and men. But those choices are actually consequences of the social forces at play.

Public sector employers with more than 250 staff are legally obliged to publish their gender pay gap by Friday, while private firms and charities have until Wednesday 4 April. About 7,000 of a estimated total of 9,000 organisations had filed results by Thursday.companies have filed mathematically impossible figures - at least 17 have reported a bonus gap of more than 100%. One company reported an hourly mean gender pay gap of 106.4%, implying that for every £100 earned by a man a woman would "pay" £6.40. A spokesperson at the company declined to comment.

Use of mean and median to analyse the paygap at The Guardian group. The gender pay gap at Guardian News & Media is 11.3% - calculated by mean hourly pay - the company has reported as part of the government's compulsory gender pay gap initiative.Across GNM, the median pay difference, which takes the mid-point when all wage rates are lined up from the biggest to smallest - which reduces the impact of one-off outliers - is wider, at 12.1%. The figure for non-editorial is 18.2%, and nearly 9% in editorial.

Excellent analysis from the FT (you'll need to login to view via the link) that uses knowledge of the Mean and Median to show that some companies have reported incorrect (fabricated?) pay-gap information! One in 20 UK companies that have submitted gender pay gap data to the government have reported numbers that are statistically improbable and therefore almost certainly inaccurate, a Financial Times analysis has found. Sixteen companies, each with more than 250 employees, reported that they paid their male and female staff exactly the same, that is they had a zero average gender pay gap measured by both the mean and median. Experts on pay said that it was highly anomalous for companies of that size to have median and mean pay gaps that were identical because the two statistics measure different things. The mean gap measures the difference between the average male and female salary while the median gap is calculated using the midpoint salary for each gender.

Really good video illustrating how (a) gathering data, and (b) understanding the shape of that data can give us insight onto real world issues, and help us to target approaches to tackling them "Britain has carried out one of the biggest data-gathering exercises on the gender pay gap, exposing large disparities between the average pay given to men and women in some of the country's best-known companies. We dispel some of the myths around the gap, and explain what it really means and why it matters"

Some fantastic visualisations in this piece from the Guardian, including a scatterplot and some different kinds of histograms! Well worth exploring. "The figures reveal men are paid more than women in 7,795 out of 10,016 companies and public bodies in Britain, based on the median hourly pay. Across the companies and organisations that had filed by 8am on Thursday, eight out of 10 had a gender pay gap. While the figures do not reflect equal pay for equal work, they do raise questions about structural inequalities in the workforce and may hold the answer to closing the gap."

Interesting discussion of evidence on what does, and does not, work in tackling gender bias in recruitment and management processes. Evidence shows that skills-based assessment tasks (where candidates are given tests that replicate the work they'll actually do on the job) and structured interviews (where all candidates are given the same questions in the same order) have a positive impact on diverse recruitment. Unstructured interviews are more likely to allow unfair bias to creep in. Making promotion and pay processes more transparent can reduce pay inequality: when decisions are reviewed by others, managers realise they need to be objective and evidence-based. Evidence also shows women ask for less money than men. To encourage them to negotiate more, employers should make the possible salary range for roles clear. Studies indicate that women are put off negotiating when they're not sure what a reasonable offer is. "A lot of employers are genuinely really keen to reduce the gender pay gap, and also want to show they're making a change. But they're starved for information about what is likely to work,"

When talking about the gender pay gap people tend to talk about the median figure rather than the mean. The mean is calculated by adding up all of the wages of employees in a company and dividing that figure by the number of employees. This means the final figure can be skewed by a small number of highly paid individuals. The median is the number that falls in the middle of a range when everyone's wages are lined up from smallest to largest and is more representative when there is a lot of variation in pay.

Women continue to earn less than men, for a variety of reasons. Discrimination is one, research shows. Women are also likelier than men to work in lower-paying jobs like those in public service, caregiving and the nonprofit sector - and to take time off for children. Employers often base a starting salary on someone's previous one, so at each job, the gender pay gap continues, and it becomes seemingly impossible for women to catch up. Salary history bans are too new for researchers to have studied their effects extensively. But other research has found that people are overly influenced by an opening bid, something social scientists call anchoring bias. This means that if employers learn an applicant's previous salary and it's lower or higher than they were planning to offer, it's likely to influence their offer.

The reasons for the disparity in pay vary from company to company but the broader source of the gap can be seen in the distribution of high earners by gender. Of all the companies that have reported to date the top pay quartile, the highest paid 25% of employees, is male-dominated. Almost two-thirds of the top quartile is made up of men, while conversely 57% of the lowest-paid employees are women.

Most of the poor people in the world are women. In no country on earth are women economically equal to men, and Australia is no exception. Research from Acoss and the University of New South Wales last year showed that a higher share of people living in poverty in Australia are women. The experience of living below the breadline in our very wealthy nation is a gendered one, for reasons that are complex and intertwined. As women progress through life, they encounter a series of barriers and setbacks that simply do not encumber men in the same way. The cause of gendered poverty is structural. It is entrenched in our workplace settings, and embedded in our personal relationships. It is at play at every stage of a woman's life, from childhood to the grave, making its mark on our education, our employment, our homes, our familial responsibilities and our retirement options. At its heart is the simple fact that women do the lion's share of caring for others. Caring is women's work, and our society does not value women's work.

'Middle Australia' earns much less than the government would have you believe and women continue to earn much less than men. ...The 2014-15 taxation statistics released last week revealed that the median taxable income of the 9.95m Australians with a taxable income was just $54,543. If you earned more than that, then you earned more than at least half of Australians.