Should women and men receive equal pay for different jobs?

How about we just stop letting gender determine pay rate? I don’t understand why this is even an issue. It’s 2009, not 1959, fer chrissake.

Interesting question. Typically “female” jobs do seem to be paid less. I saw a show once that said women don’t ask for more money, maybe meaning they don’t demand more. Gender should have nothing to do with it really. There have been some people who have argued that nurses should come up with a new title, because the word has such a traditionally female history.

Really market forces should be at work, aside from gender. In general we pay more to people who have rare or specialized skills.

that may be the most idiotic thing I’ve ever heard. There is no such thing as “women’s jobs” and “men’s jobs”. There are male nurses. There are female mechanics. Gender has no place in determining salary.

@MrItty but there are traditionally female and male jobs, even though now that is more of a thing of the past, we know what they are.

First off, whoever thinks that gender does not determine salary is seriously blinded. Women are notoriously paid less then men even within the same field.

Secondly I don’t see why women shouldn’t be paid the same as men for comparable jobs.

But let’s take gender out of the issue for a moment and look at it this way. We are really quite messed up in what we pay period. We pay celebrities millions of dollars (sometimes per show). And we pay our teachers next to nothing. We’ve got it backwards for sure.

I agree
@RedPowerLady

This is why it might not be always a good idea to let the market decide which occupation is more worthy of bigger salaries.

Should tall men and short men be paid the same for doing the same work? Should blond women and brunettes be paid for doing the same job? Should black people and white people be paid the same for doing the same job? This is the same question.

Now, @RedPowerLady – if we pay celebrities the same as teachers, very little, who gets to keep all the extra money that the celebrities generate? Their managers? Then soon people will say the same thing all over again. Now, if only we could get teachers to generate the same amount of income, they’d make just as much. I, for one, wouldn’t mind seeing some of my old teachers lace up and chase the puck down the ice…

i dont think what degree you have or what gender you are should matter as much as how good you do the job you are assigned.

Rate of pay is determined by requirement of that field in the market.
Gender is not an issue as it was.
You cannot classify a particular Job as; “male” or “female”. If you do, that makes you ignorant, because the fact is, there is equal opportunity nowadays, period.

@laureth It is society that helps them generate all that extra money. It isn’t something that happens “naturally”. I say we turn things around so that your question is off the table.

Equal pay for different jobs? Some jobs have a higher pay grade than others. Should a receptionist make as much as a director? Probably not.
If the question is if men and women should be paid the same for doing the same job, then I’d say yes there does need to be parity here.

Yeah, I agree, different jobs receive different pay. You can’t compare two things that are totally different. Like…who’s better? Michael Jordan or Babe Ruth? Well…they’re different so you keep them seperate and they don’t really need to have anything to do with one another…

So what would the argument be then as to justify why mechanics get paid more than nurses or secretaries (example OP posted)? It is important to look at the demographics of these jobs. Women typically get hired into the lower paying jobs. Should they be lower paying? Or should we just ignore the disparity because they are different? I suppose we could argue that women could be mechanics and visa versa. But the idea is that jobs who “typically” hire women are lower paid than those of equivalent? stature who “typically” hire men.

I’d be interested in any responses to this by people who say they are different just out of curiosity.

@RedPowerLady
Mechanics, plumbers, builders, if you would like to classify these as “typical male” jobs, are higher paid as to the fact there is a higher demand from the public for these particular services, as opposed to a nurse or secretarial position. These, “typical male”, jobs can be categorised also as physical labour, and requires higher pay because of the long and short term damage the body sustains from it.
At the end of the day the market determines rate of pay, If it didn’t we would have dishwashers being paid the same as CEO’s.

On a side note, nurse’s wages are biased by government subsidies rather than private enterprise, here in Australia, anyway. With that being said, refer back to my original point.

@milla101 Thank you but I was referring to a moral argument rather than agreeing with what the market determines. As said above perhaps we shouldn’t let the market determine rate of pay.

@RedPowerLady
If we were to determine rate of pay by morality, it would culminate, once again, with the market to determine it. For morality is defined as; conformity to conventional standards of moral conduct, and conventional is defined as; established by the accepted usage or general agreement[Collins Dict. 1998].
Therefore, a utilitarian, morality is in the greater good of the social structure, which establishes the requirement of the market to determine pay grade, so doesn’t that make it moral?

@milla101 there is a problem when there is lack of competition in the area. If you live in a city that has one huge employeer, that company kind of sets the rate many times. I lean towards the market setting pay scales, but I think we need some control and integrity in the system, that we do not see frequently. There are companies like Ben and Jerry’s that worked hard to treat employees fairly and let them enjoy the profitablility of the company, but many companies don’t give crap. The company has the upper hand in many cases, because people need to work to live. Unless staff “organizes.” I think better to treat them well to begin with and avoid the union.

This is reminding me of one of my favorite jokes.

Q: How many Libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division?

A: Don’t worry, the Market will solve it.

@JLeslie
What you’re saying is that there should be control and integrity for the worker, when an independent company has higher stake in the market in that particular area, right?
You answered the question yourself, the Workers Union was put in place to apply that control and integrity for the workforce, to companies, and to equalise pay, amongst many other things, to the “market standard” of a particular role is their duty. It’d be folly of a worker not to contact the union.

At the end of the day, to answer your question @airowDee I disagree, on the basis that equal opportunity is very much applied and wages are determined by the means of the market, which is in the best interest of society.

@milla101 Except I tend to be anti-union, because they tend to screw stuff up also. I think it better if we simply treat each other fairly. It is really very complicated in my mind and very simple at the same time.

Look at the auto industry. They were making hand over fist in the 70’s, literally billions. The union became more demanding saying if owners and senior executives are going to make huge amounts of money then it should also tricle down to the workers who are actually making the cars. I heard that health benefits provided by companies started with the auto companies (I hate that health insurance has anythng to do with your job, but I digress). Auto workers were making huge amounts of money and promised pensions and benefits for life, because the auto industry never thought they would hit hard times. I think they should have maybe not made soooo much profit. Maybe they should have cared more about making safe cars, and using quality parts? Maybe they should have kittied some money for a rainy day? Maybe they could have kept prices down and not made so much per car? They thought only about the short term and got all cocky. If they had had more integrity they would have fewer problems today. I generally don’t trust the big companies and the unions to do what is right in terms of the big picture.

I am all for capitalism and making money, but there is a line that gets crossed all to often that helps a few for a while, but hurts many in the end.

@milla101 Perhaps you are misunderstanding my point. My point is that we need to change our values so that society drives the market towards pay rates that reflect better morals.

@RedPowerLady
I understood your point and answered it. You’re saying that Morality should be the basis of pay rates, right? Refer to my third answer down, from the top.

@JLeslie
You’re anti-union, yet you want integrity for the worker in a capitalist society? You should research how much the Workers Union has done for the Worker today.

@milla101 No you don’t understand. I’m quite sure of it. However I’m not quite sure what you are arguing. What is your point?

I simply could care less about what the “market” determines. I care more about what society does (rather does not) do to change unfair pay rates. We have the power to do so and I think it is an issue worthy of advocacy.

@RedPowerLady
You obviously didn’t read my point very well. MORALITY is defined by GREATER GOOD which is defined by THE MARKET which makes it MORAL.

@milla101 I did read your response. I sincerely disagree that the Market reflects the greater good or determines morality.

@RedPowerLady
how and why do you disagree that it isn’t?

@milla101 The Market is determined by supply and demand. Correct?
Supply and demand has nothing to do with morality. It has everything to do with consumerism.

A nation’s economy is forged on supply and demand of its goods and services. It would not be in the best interest of a country’s economy to pay an equal amount to an industry of lesser demand for its services (the market, consumers), than that of an industry with a higher demand, which causes the market to determine pay grade. As it is in the best interest of a nation’s economy to allow the market to establish pay rate, it is therefore moral, because it’s for the greater good of a nation.

@milla101 I think the unions were very necessary in the past, but the pendullum has swung too far in the opposite direction in some instances. Teachers get tenure, what other industry in the US gets a guarantee of not being fired, even if your performance diminishes? They get pay increases just for being there, not on merit from what I understand? I lived in Michigan, a very unionized state, and what I saw I could not believe, and now it is coming back to haunt them. I feel the same about affirmative action, there was a reason to have it when it was created, but now need for it is waning. America is supposed to evaluate each individual on merit, skill level, hard work, not on race.

Back to unions…what I would prefer is regulation that is reasonable and fair, that does not hurt business, but gives guidelines that if a company is working with integrity the regs will not hamper the business in any way, because they will be easily met.

There is some idea out there that business owners need to make $50million to want to own a business. I think if they make $10million they will still want to be in business. Wealthy business owners with integrity have supported this idea, willing to give up money they make themselves for the greater good, and maybe for a touch of there for the grace of God go I. Right now we see this movement within taxation talk, and the people fighting hardest for not raising taxes on the rich, is not the rich, but the middle class Republican right wing who doesn’t even make enough money to have to pay the tax. People who don’t even really understand the tax laws rich people take advantage of. It also applies to minimum wage and other topics.

@milla101 Again you are discussing the economy which is based on capitalism. Many of us can agree that the very nature of captialism does not reflect the value of its citizens. Therefor it does not reflect the greater good.

Just because something is in the best interest of the nations economy does not mean that it reflects the greater good. Many people are hurt by the way the economy works today. You could even say the majority of people are if you look at the amount of people living below the poverty line and the number of people right above it. Then look at how 1% of the world controls most of the worlds resources.

I think your thinkining on this topic is intrinsically flawed. You are trusting a system that was works to help a certain class of people.

@RedPowerLady
Basing your conclusion on “many of us can agree…...therefor it does not reflect the greater good” Is empty and without founding, because the fact that the system works is concluding evidence. You say many people are hurt by a capitalist nation, I think you need to compare the differences between the capitalist nations and that of a communist or 3rd world government, before you doubt it completely.
You asked for Morality as an addition to the original question,which is what I provided, a utilitarian morality. My ideas and thinking are not flawed, I’m sorry to say, you just fail to see reason.

@JLeslie
We’re going off on a tangent of the original issue, company bigotry in regards to excess income is another issue.

@milla101 Well we are going to have to agree to disagree. If you cannot accept that there are extraordinary flaws in our economic system today. Especially the separation of classes. Meaning that certain classes are thus ruling your idea of morality. Not mine.

@RedPowerLady
I’m not naive. You wanted an answer for Morality, I gave you one. You’ve given no basis to back up your opinion on the factor of equal pay rites in regards to Morality, all you’ve done so far is disagree. Define your definition of Morality, Convince me otherwise, because I do believe this is the purpose of these discussion boards in the first place.

@milla101 I suppose I just disagree with you. That is allowed isn’t it? I’m not sure what you want me to convince you of as I’ve stated my opinion several times.

@RedPowerLady
Of course you can just disagree, and all you’ve really said so far; it’s immoral that a secretary gets less than a mechanic, without any basis. What makes it immoral? How are you defining morality? That’s the reason we extended the discussion isn’t it? or did you just want to get another opinion and disagree? ;)

@milla101 As a matter of fact that is not all I’ve said. I said that the economy and therefore the market do not determine morality or the greater good and I’ve stated why.

I did want another opinion and I appreciate having one. But the reason I disagreed so vehemently because I think it goes against common sense to say how we use our money determines morality or the greater good.

How do I define morality? Well that would probably depend on each situation. I’m not avoiding the question to get you upset but I just don’t think it is something that can easily be summed up. I think the synonyms (in box) are pretty good descriptors of morality for the most part: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moral

@milla101 – To say that the market decides what is moral is to declare the thing that makes the most money as the most moral thing, does it not? And I think the case can easily be made that this is not always (or even often) true.

@laureth
To have something more MORAL than something else, I never said that. I don’t think you have any Idea of what the exact issue that @RedPowerLady and I are debating.

@RedPowerLady
I respect your opinion, and I’m not upset. Moving on =)
What’s your opinion on this? A business, a hair salon, in a local district charges %500 more than the market worth, for a cut. Then a new salon opens and charges the regulated market price, the locals go to the new one cause the price is what they’d usually pay. Do you think that the market rate should determine the cost of that cut?

Well, I’ll just bow my silly little head out for now, then. Thanks for the head’s-up.

@milla101 In your example of the haircut I do think the market should determine the cut, But what happens if you are the only hair salon in town? Is it ok to charge whatever youo want? Or, should integrity play a part in how you price? I am all excited that another cable company migh tcome to town because I think I am getting ripped off by Comcast, but for the most part Comcast is the only deal in town, we are at their mercy. This is when the free market doesn’t work. I agree that if we look at communism around the world it simply doesn’t work in my opinion, sounds good on paper, but doesn’t pan out. But, it seems like there can be some sort of hybrid, it doesn not have to be all or none I think.

@milla101 See I don’t think it is about market rates but about common business sense and a sense of rightness for your customers. I believe that common sense tells us a 500% markup is going to lose you customers. And that rightness (whatever that means) tells us that it is wrong to jump prices so high that most people wouldn’t be able to afford it. Basically I am saying screw the market. For a more intelligent response see @JLeslie ‘s answer. She makes some good points.

@JLeslie
Excellent! You agree that the market should determine the cut. The issue being equality of wages, would you apply that same thought between a higher demanding industry than that of a less?

Off of our original topic: A companies ability to charge what it feels like in an area, unfortunately, unbiased by the market. I would agree, partially. You should make a new question of it and we can go into it in more length. =)

@RedPowerLady
It was hypothetical, I could’ve said: 500% or 110%.

@milla101 I always agreed with market forces, I just think there needs to be some sort of ceiling if people are not going to treat others as they would want to be treated themselves. Maybe some sort of regulation? I don’t know how to solve it really, there lies the problem and the complexity of the issue in my mind.

@JLeslie @RedPowerLady
Thank you for your sharing your thoughts, that was good fun.