Gender Pay Flap

A reader sends me a link to this video of members of Australia’s gender equality extortion racket being questioned by a senator on their data collection practices. Have a look for yourselves:

I don’t object to female politicians. What I object to is bureaucracies stuffed with spectacularly thick or intellectually dishonest individuals (of either sex) tasked with pushing hardcore feminist agendas on the rest of the population. At some point, which I concede might be long into the future, people are going to openly state that feminising government was a bad idea. Probably when picking through the ashes of whatever is left of our civilisation.

Liked it? Take a second to support Tim Newman on Patreon!
Share

32 thoughts on “Gender Pay Flap

  1. Sadly the senator doing the questioning has recently retired. One doubts whoever replaces him will be as probing of current orthodoxy.

  2. Stop, stop, it hurts. (managed three minutes though)

    My jaw hit the floor at “we take part time data and extrapolate it over a year to make it full time”.

  3. So they lie and avoid counting anything that reveals their trickery. Feminists, in other words.

  4. Love the wee slip: “we don’t have the data to unadjust” (3:31). Translation: “we have tried but we can’t make the facts fit our narrative better”.

  5. Desperately embarrassing. At times almost counter-productively so, in that I started feeling sorry for them. It’s one of those clips that makes its case so well that it might almost have been a brilliantly acted scene from a top-notch TV comedy.

    I wonder how their conversation went in the car on the way home. Did they berate themselves about lack of preparation and start planning how to win the return match by including and massaging those tricky hourly pay rates? Or did they just whimper about patriarchy and what a sexist ignorant pig that senator was?

  6. I thought he was particularly good in that he never descended into laughter, insult or verbal violence!

  7. The whale to the left of her should be on double bubble. That would even out the pay gap.

  8. Haha 5 minutes in, the cretinous woman answering tries to make the case that someone who is sitting at their desk for 12 hours may not be working harder than someone working for 8 hours. If we believe this, we can make the case that the fact that a woman is paid less than a man might simply be because the man is working harder than a woman.

  9. It’s obvious they don’t know what any of the figures mean, hence they are unable to defend them. They can’t even describe the data properly, it might as well be the results of Martian rock analysis for all this panel is able to answer questions on it.

  10. Tim

    To be fair very few people understand economic stats well. Most economists are fairly poor in their understanding of how economic stats are collected – even a lot of those doing macro. For example, to understand the basics of how GDP is calculated:

    https://unstats.un.org/unsd/nationalaccount/docs/sna2008.pdf

    This is 722 pages. And this draws on a variety of other literature. If you were unkind and quizzed your economics profs, many of them would have no idea how the SNA works in detail.

    This said, the cretins in the above clip clearly had no clue.

  11. It’s not surprising that they fail to understand their own data. As the highly influential Feminist philosopher Barbè once said:

    “Math is hard!”

  12. My jaw hit the floor at “we take part time data and extrapolate it over a year to make it full time”.

    Well… what’s wrong with that? You’ve got to compare apples with apples, and the question is whether woman are getting paid less than men for the same work, not whether they earn less in total.

    Of course, comparing hourly rates with overtime factored in would be an even better way of comparing apples to apples, but evidently that doesn’t yield as high a gap.

    But maybe I’m not understanding it properly. It’s not just women that can’t do numbers hurr durr

  13. Well… what’s wrong with that?

    Part time pay always differs from full time pay. Sometimes it’s more, sometimes less, but you can’t lump the two in together.

  14. @Matthew

    In general part time workers will earn less than full time workers per hour*. Most attempts at correctly classifying the gender pay gap try to compare apples with apples. Early attempts looked at full time workers per hour median wages, more recent attempts have attempted to also control for experience, roles, workplace and skills.

    There is virtually no gender pay gap once we control these factors in the US. Note that this doesnt mean that there is no gender pay gap – but to change it, we’d need women to work more (no more child care gaps) – which would mean child care duties would either be distributed more equally or more bought in care (assuming that this was economically viable) – and probably require that women choose different jobs.

    The bulk of the “you owe me 21 cents” is dishonest crap.

    *Part-time workers receive considerably lower hourly earnings than do full-time workers. Using Current Population Survey earnings files for September 1995 through December 2002, the author finds that measurable worker and job characteristics, including occupational skill requirements, account for much of the part-time penalty. Longitudinal analysis of the data indicates that much of the remaining gap reflects worker heterogeneity, evidenced by small wage gains and losses among workers switching between part-time and full-time jobs. The lower skills of part-time than full-time workers result primarily from limited work experience and accumulation of human capital. Little evidence can be found of a large wage gap between part-time and full-time women. A part-time wage penalty is found for men, but men account for less than one-third of total part-time employment.
    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001979390505800401

  15. What I don’t understand is this scenario.

    If a company is recruiting for a role and two CV’s, one from a female, one from a male arrive on the recruiters desk and point for point, skill for skill, experience and attitude the two Cv’s are essentially identical.

    If the company can pay the woman 20% (or more) LESS than a man, why should it hire the man. Surely if the two are as functionally identical as two coins in your pocket, then the obvious choice would be to hire the less expensive one? Logically we should see full employment for women and few men working.

    As an aside, the blonde bimbo in the youtube clip above seemed to listening in Swahili while the man asked the questions and could only parrot the same time worn mantra. It was like watching someone arguing with a Dalek. She seemed incapable of grasping a simple concept such as “Same hourly rate, man works 20% longer hours, that equates to a 20% difference in pay”.

  16. At one point Libby said the data had been analised which was the most accurate statement that came out of her mouth. I thought her dress was very attractive thgough and matched her hair colouring beautifully.

  17. Phil B.

    Yep. If women are the equal of, if not better than men, then someone would be making an economic killing. Sadly, the equality laws stopped Dame Steve in her tracks, but I’ll bet they could get round them now. Who would complain if a feminist set up an all women company?

    (As long as they weren’t TERF’s, I suppose)

  18. I posted this clip to my Facebook page a while ago and was surprised to get not a single response from my Australian FB circle. I can only conclude that Australians have now come to accept this sort of thing as normal.

  19. Yep. If women are the equal of, if not better than men, then someone would be making an economic killing.
    As Thomas Sowell stated, in aparthied South Africa, there were legal limits on how many black people white employers could hire. Employers routinely circumvented these laws at risk to themselves not because they were wonderfully altruistic, but because they could pay black people significantly less. The economic incentive to hire black people outweighed the risk of breaking the law and their racism.
    So unless we are arguing that women are discriminated against more than black people during aparthied a genuine difference in hourly wages would lead to mass hirings of women due to the economic opportunity.

  20. Have you seen the World Economic Forum’s Gender Gap report? from p16 :
    “…in the case of healthy life expectancy the equality benchmark is set at 1.06 Truncating the data at the equality benchmarks for each assigns the same score to a country that has reached parity between women and men and one where women have surpassed men…

    …We find the one-sided scale more appropriate for our purposes, as it does not reward countries for having exceeded the parity benchmark”

    So Russia’s life expectancy (women 67.5, men 59.1) counts as equality while the United States’ life expectancy (women 70.1, men 66.9) counts as women suffering a gender gap since they redefined equality as women living 6% longer than men.

    In a better world they would be universally mocked for this until they hide under a rock and dismissed as unserious people but they’ve been doing it this way for 13 years and still get media attention.

  21. Just to add grist to the mill, THIS report goes into some detail about the taxes paid by women and the benefits they consume.

    OK, it is New Zealand but it is highly likely that it is typical fr any western country at the moment (and for some, I think that the benefits drawn will be higher and the tax paid lower which will “prove” that women are underpaid since they pay less tax …).

    Those poor women, missing out again …

  22. My female wife ( probably worth clarifying these days) is paid more than her male boss, as a result of her employer’s so far fruitless attempt levelling employment outcomes. Say circa 10% are female at her Snr/middle management level.

    Not being entirely stupid, her boss has used this outcome to increase his own salary, to a level more commensurate with his more senior status. I bet they didn’t thnk of that!

  23. Excruciating.

    Blonde woman typifies so many female politicians who prattle on with little or no knowledge or understanding of the subject

  24. For clarification, those ladies being questioned aren’t politicians. They are just government appointees to the Workplace Gender Equality Authority. This is one of those boring-as-batshit Senate Estimates hearings, I think.

  25. Part time pay always differs from full time pay.

    TIL. I’ve never thought about it. Ads for part-time jobs are always giving the salary as full time pro rata, so I figured…

    Ken – The lower skills of part-time than full-time workers result primarily from limited work experience and accumulation of human capital.

    Does this mean that a 40-hr/wk worker of three years’s experience will be making the same as a 20-hr/wk worker of six? (Assuming equal skill.)

    In other words, if it truly were apples to apples, would we find part-time workers getting paid equivalent hourly rates to full-time ones?

    The bulk of the “you owe me 21 cents” is dishonest crap.

    At least I already knew that!

    Mark Risdon – to be honest, it might be because Leyonheljm (spelling?) doesn’t sound too much like *he* knows what he’s talking about either. But that might just because he’s having trouble following those broads’s senseless gum-flapping. I know I did.

  26. Matthew McConnagay I think Leyonhjelm is fairly switched on, but he also knows that in Australia the Sisterhood is untouchable…maybe I’ll rephrase that…a scared cow…hang on, I’ll rephrase that again… above criticism, so he’s under no illusion that exposing this horseshit is going to actually change anything.

  27. Hi Matthew

    “Does this mean that a 40-hr/wk worker of three years’s experience will be making the same as a 20-hr/wk worker of six? (Assuming equal skill.)”

    Yes. The Hirsh (2005) paper suggests that it’s the characteristics of the workers that explain the part time vs. full time wage gap (although there is slightly more of a gap for men in part time).

    It is pretty depressing that the results are clear, yet the arguments made in public are so moronically simple minded.

  28. “For clarification, those ladies being questioned aren’t politicians. They are just government appointees to the Workplace Gender Equality Authority. This is one of those boring-as-batshit Senate Estimates hearings, I think.”

    WGEA is a QANGO. Almost without fail they are staffed by individuals who real government departments consider superfluous.

Comments are closed.