There are tons of salaried positions on there that do not pay overtime (they're salaried). There are plenty on that list that have majority of women making up the profession and still pay less to women even positions of power like Education Administrators, for example.
It IS a very common practice for salaried workers to be expected to work past their hours though, and oftentimes raises are decided based on who works longer hours.
Here you go:
"
According to Quartz, the study documents the shift towards longer work hours over the past three decades and the exacerbated gender pay gap, and found that almost 20% of American men worked 50 hours or more per week in 2000 -- compared to only 7% of women and the extra hours result in an extra 6% in hourly wages across all occupations.
....
And the extra hours are significant, not only for extra pay, but for career progression. The research suggests that the disparity in overtime not only widens the gender pay gap by 10% but those who work more overtime are more likely to end up at the top of the corporate ladder because employers are likely to view these employees as hard-working and more deserving of leadership positions. "
Keep in mind your study in *no way* shows this to be incorrect - it doesn't consider it at all.
http://www.womensagenda.com.au/talk...n-women-gender-pay-gap-explained/201311263262
IN what fields and to what extent? The link I posted has many many fields and many supervisory and high level manager positions that show the same gap.
"75 percent of college-educated women aged 35 to 60 nationwide would rather have more free time in their lives than make more money at their jobs. In fact, 40 percent would even take a pay cut for more flexibility"
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs...al-women-choosing-flexibility-over-higher-pay
75% of women between 35 and 60, actually. That doesn't discriminate between field, and likely just shows a different social priority compared to men.
That doesn't make sense. We are talking about 1 or 2% of their careers lost to child birth. And you see the same gaps when comparing women to men BEFORE they have children.
Actually, many more women take significant time off of work during the entire time their kids are at home compared to men - part of why they want those flexible hours. This is already explained in what I've posted, but I can't help but get the feeling you read the one article you liked and you've left it at that.
You only pointed to two things really. What you have done is found a legitimate explanation for the gap for some situations and are incorrectly applying that across the board.
Keep in mind, my position is one that there is merit for both sides, not that "Women are WRONG - they make just as much, all things equal!" I really don't know. But, when the popular number thrown around can be shown to be either grossly wrong or misleading, I like to question the hell out of it.
One of your links debunks your own myth, lol. I didn't watch any of the videos.
Actually, I left that up specifically to show another side of the issue. If you actually read the other links I post, you'll probably see that they directly contradict/disagree with that link - which leaves us at a point of "what's really going on here?"
Why do I get the feeling you read that link, saw it supported your existing bias, and are pretty much ignoring significant evidence pointing other directions now? I find it interesting that you've decided the evidence on one side consists of "myths" but you've decided that the one is evidently not...
Lastly, several of the more comprehensive studies I've seen still suggest a slight wage gap which people cannot conclusively pin down to either sexism or unconsidered factors. None of it is proof of consistent systemic pay discrimination though.
So a 5 - 7% unexplained gap means everything is ok to you?
Nope. I just choose not to scream "SEXISM!" when the previous numbers, which were much larger, have been soundly debunked without sexism having anything to do with it. As such, I don't propose we institute new large scale legal fixes to a problem we haven't even conclusively pinned down yet.
I don't propose everything is OK, but why don't we find out what accounts for discrepancy before we assume it's sexism? That cool with you?
Here's some food for thought for you:
"But now there's evidence that the ship may finally be turning around: according to a new analysis of 2,000 communities by a market research company, in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% higher than those of the guys in their peer group. In two cities, Atlanta and Memphis, those women are making about 20% more. This squares with earlier research from Queens College, New York, that had suggested that this was happening in major metropolises. But the new study suggests that the gap is bigger than previously thought, with young women in New York City, Los Angeles and San Diego making 17%, 12% and 15% more than their male peers, respectively. And it also holds true even in reasonably small areas like the Raleigh-Durham region and Charlotte in North Carolina (both 14% more), and Jacksonville, Fla. (6%). "
http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html
Tell me, where does this fit into the whole "it's not because they want kids, more flexible hours, men have more seniority, blah blah blah" spectrum for you?
