How To Succeed In Fixing Gender Inequality - Is It Possible?
Short answer is probably, longer answer is probably but is that really what you want and the smart answer starts with a question of "what equality are you specifically talking about?"Answer the question within the smart answer and you have a far better chance of getting where society needs to go, but it might not be where you think or expect.
Equality in job participation overall?
"In 2017–18, almost two-thirds of women (64%) and three quarters of men (75%) aged 20–74 years old were employed, this is referred to as the employment to population ratio"
So how do we fix this, that is go to 50:50? Do we sack 11% of the men or refuse more males in the workforce and only employ women until women's 64% comes up to men's level?
C'mon now, there's a pair of options to bring equality of outcome we're supposed to aspire to if we're to achieve more fair representation. Seems very totalitarian leaning though...
Here's another unlevel playing field...
"In 2017–18, three in every four 'clerical and administrative workers' are women (75%) and nine out of ten 'machine operators' are men (91%), which has remained largely unchanged over the last decade."
How do we even those statistics up, because if you look at the entire gender wage gap, dominance in some higher paid industries of one gender & dominance of lower paid workers in some industries can skew the overall Average earnings of Women vs Men.
There is the thing though. We have pay equality in Australia. You cannot pay a person more or less based on their gender. A female shearer earns no more than a male shearer. The rate is the same.
If someone is paid more or less due to their gender, that's illegal in this country.
Lets consider some of the other pay rates skewing the Men vs Women Earning Pay Gap.
"The industries with the highest proportion of women are 'health care and social assistance' (79%) and 'education and training' (72%), while men dominated the 'construction' (88%) and 'mining' (84%) industries (See Table 1.3). The graphic below demonstrates the gender composition across all industries"
Men are more likely to work outside, in or with machinery or in work shops or in the harder climates. Men are more likely to work more dangerous jobs, they're more likely to be killed or injured in the workplace than women. They're more likely to travel either FIFO or relocate than women. Men are more likely to work full time, women are more likely to work part time
These are just some figures that cannot be weighted out or factored in when calculating the Gender Pay Gap which is total Female Earnings vs the total Male Earners (most often of full time workers).
Women are more likely to own or be buying their home compared to men, men are less likely to own their home outright. There's age & other factors like widow/widower status that is included and skew the male vs female comparison ratio.
Not sure how we address this inequality...but then men are more likely to be killed or injured in active combat, more likely to commit suicide & more likely to go to jail.
Generally I note its more often the call that we need more women in Parliament and on the board of Blue Chip listed companies. I often ponder how it is that we aim for 50:50 ratio in these very high paid, very high profile, white collar jobs (some might say elite jobs) yet no one is pushing for 50:50 interstate truck drivers, 50:50 bricklayers, 50:50 plumbers, shearers, late night taxi drivers, airport baggage handlers.
I'm told that no it's about "representation"...how many society group differences to we cater for?
Just gender & forget other group differences like race, culture, age, religious choice...
In agriculture well over 2/3rds of the employed workforce are men. Do we reduce the numbers of men or refuse males entering that industry until more women get involved & the figure hits 50:50?
Do we reduce the numbers of women in Heath Care, Childcare or Education & Training?
All these angle to reduce or increase numbers is "equality of outcome" (leftist) not "equality of opportunity" (conservative). Engineering the result is leftist and utterly unfair. Letting the market decide with the same rate of pay per hour work for the same level of productivity is already enshrined in law.
Pregnancy - Ahh the curve ball that's answered by saying men can take time off too in some jurisdictions & that its unfair to penalise a woman for taking time off to have a baby. Here's the thing, anyone who takes a sabbatical (irrespective of their gender) is harming their career, it is a set back. That's life, not long ago few women were even allowed to have the Equal Opportunity (freedom to choose their own job).
Its unfair on the employer if extended time off work is taken by staff for whatever reason. Apparently lengthy time off work can be taken with no ill effect on the career whilst those continuing to work get no benefit at all. Those women who don't or can't have children...what happens there? To be fair do they get a sabbatical that's equivalent to the average women's time off work for child birth & rearing?
No what we need to do is identify very closely what the EQUALIT & INEQUALITY actually is...
If women want more equality, if they want the gender gap removed they have to work longer hours than they currently do, they'll need to occupy higher paying jobs that are more often outside. More often far more dangerous. Require FIFO or to relocate and generally lead to less time with the family.
Women need to be very careful what they wish for. Most of the higher paying jobs are longer hours, more dangerous and dominated by men. There's equal opportunity for them already. No one's stopping them going to jobs with higher risks, higher responsibilities to the safety of others.
What is it you want to equal up & fix?
Do we identify every other demographic and decide the percentages of certain races in certain industries is wrong and they should show a particular representative percentage in every field?
There's a huge disparity in the number of young males in one particular field. AFL Players.
There's no over 40s, no over 50s, no over 60s...that's not fair. There's no women playing AFL, why is that? Equal Outcomes says every club's playing group must be 50:50 men/women. The fact is we have Equal Opportunity and its very unlikely we'll get enough women the high standard in high enough numbers to make 50:50. We'd see a loss in playing standard. That'd mean a loss in income & returns for all involved.
Well why can't women in the AFLW be paid the same as men in the AFL?
Business fundamentals. Can the AFLW fill the MCG on its own separate Grand Final day?
Do you think the AFLW will generate 100,000+ spectators on their own grand final day?
Some things in life are fair & some unfair, some things are unequal but fair.
In nations where the Engineering of Equal Outcomes has been the greatest its actually led to wider equality disparity which is completely the opposite of all the predictions. Search some Jordan Petersen videos to learn more.
In the meantime, know what the inequality is that you think is unfair before you even think of engineering a solution. I'll just sit here and wait.
Graph above from...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-21/the-most-gendered-top-jobs-in-australia/9775544
No comments:
Post a Comment