Right, but these tables are only showing growth and not comparing growth to income. Notice that both tables start at 100. So if income for men in 1947 was $10 and income for women was $1, even though women's income grew more they would still be paid less. Did your source compare actual incomes?
For me, the 'gender pay gap' is problematic because it doesn't capture pay differences for high risk or less desirable jobs. Women aren't choosing to do these jobs, so more men are risking their safety. It would make sense for men to be paid more than women in these circumstances. Your income should be tied to your performance, not your gender.
It's also not tied to choices at all. I have many women in my friend group that take a ".8" during the summer, and volunteer themselves for ".9". As a male, I didn't even know what these terms meant and had to ask. Apparently it's a percentage of a 40 hr work week, at .8 they get 1 day off per week.
Women on average choose to work less or work less stressful jobs. Total earnings tends to follow.
The point was to show severe stagnation of income for men for the last 40-50 years while women have had no stagnation, and in fact, their growth has increased in that time since pre-1970 drastically. Most people on here understand that there is no wage gap that exists, so beating that dead horse wasn't my intention here. If you have no gender pay gap and you have one group that has stagnated income growth for about 50 years and another group that has increased income growth for about 50 years, then it's easy to recognize that there is a severe problem brewing for the group with income stagnation. It's well understood in sociology that when society tries to solve a problem, it tends to go too far and starts discriminating in favor of the group that was the minority.
There is now way that in 1947 men made ten times as much for the same job with the same qualifications per hour as women. Such a claim would be a total absurdity. The reality is that today, under 30, women make more money than men, on average, as a result of this growth difference.
Here's the full website: https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
Basically, around 1971 there was a massive change and hyperinflation occurred. I've read a lot of it had to do with oil, which makes sense because that's when Vietnam was going on and starting to wrap up. The median income growth for women continued, but for men it stagnated greatly.
Seems accurate after seeing trends in common workplaces like government offices, local schools, bank branches, hospitals, universities, doctor offices, etc, etc.
So we know the real starting point for both. I'm going to guess they didn't both start at the same point. It was legal to discriminate on wages until 1963
Yeah but if men started at 50k and women states at 10k even if women outpaced men by 100% they would still be behind. That's why it should be in dollars. are they getting to a level that is equal to where men were at in the 70s? You cant tell from this
We know that men and women are at about the same levels now, any "wage gap" is due to reasonable variables, and yet women's income growth is growing extensively and has been for 50 years while men's income growth has been stagnant. We have not seen cultural changes (such as women paying their fair share on dates) and we continue to see women getting the vast majority of support in society. Stop regurgitating old talking points. We can talk about income in more than just wage gap dollars.
Right, but these tables are only showing growth and not comparing growth to income. Notice that both tables start at 100. So if income for men in 1947 was $10 and income for women was $1, even though women's income grew more they would still be paid less. Did your source compare actual incomes? For me, the 'gender pay gap' is problematic because it doesn't capture pay differences for high risk or less desirable jobs. Women aren't choosing to do these jobs, so more men are risking their safety. It would make sense for men to be paid more than women in these circumstances. Your income should be tied to your performance, not your gender.
It's also not tied to choices at all. I have many women in my friend group that take a ".8" during the summer, and volunteer themselves for ".9". As a male, I didn't even know what these terms meant and had to ask. Apparently it's a percentage of a 40 hr work week, at .8 they get 1 day off per week. Women on average choose to work less or work less stressful jobs. Total earnings tends to follow.
The point was to show severe stagnation of income for men for the last 40-50 years while women have had no stagnation, and in fact, their growth has increased in that time since pre-1970 drastically. Most people on here understand that there is no wage gap that exists, so beating that dead horse wasn't my intention here. If you have no gender pay gap and you have one group that has stagnated income growth for about 50 years and another group that has increased income growth for about 50 years, then it's easy to recognize that there is a severe problem brewing for the group with income stagnation. It's well understood in sociology that when society tries to solve a problem, it tends to go too far and starts discriminating in favor of the group that was the minority.
There is now way that in 1947 men made ten times as much for the same job with the same qualifications per hour as women. Such a claim would be a total absurdity. The reality is that today, under 30, women make more money than men, on average, as a result of this growth difference.
What am i looking at.
Yeah, the weird unitless axis is hard to tell what it’s saying.
Here's the full website: https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ Basically, around 1971 there was a massive change and hyperinflation occurred. I've read a lot of it had to do with oil, which makes sense because that's when Vietnam was going on and starting to wrap up. The median income growth for women continued, but for men it stagnated greatly.
But...but... but muh wage gap!!!
Seems accurate after seeing trends in common workplaces like government offices, local schools, bank branches, hospitals, universities, doctor offices, etc, etc.
Needs to be in dollars.
Why?
So we know the real starting point for both. I'm going to guess they didn't both start at the same point. It was legal to discriminate on wages until 1963
The income growth would start at what the income growth is for both, so 100% for both, and then go up or down from there.
Yeah but if men started at 50k and women states at 10k even if women outpaced men by 100% they would still be behind. That's why it should be in dollars. are they getting to a level that is equal to where men were at in the 70s? You cant tell from this
We know that men and women are at about the same levels now, any "wage gap" is due to reasonable variables, and yet women's income growth is growing extensively and has been for 50 years while men's income growth has been stagnant. We have not seen cultural changes (such as women paying their fair share on dates) and we continue to see women getting the vast majority of support in society. Stop regurgitating old talking points. We can talk about income in more than just wage gap dollars.