Discrimination Of Wages Between Men And Women

Discrimination Of Wages Between Men And Women 1

Discrimination of Wages between Men and Women According to the Institute for women policy research, “in 2018, female full-time, year-round workers made only 82 cents for every dollar earned by men, a gender wage gap of 18 percent.†This particular study demonstrates the comprehension of the extent of pay inequality in various occupations. The analysis established that women’s earnings for 15 years represent just half of the men’s earning in equal duration. Averagely, women earn less than their male counterparts in almost all occupations. Therefore, this paper establishes the deliberate gender discrimination in remuneration as a significant feature of the labor market.

Generally, the wages discrimination is multi-faceted in the dimension that, irrespective of women’s qualifications the jobs done by women have low remuneration that the jobs predominantly executed by men averagely. Primarily, there are dominant strides by the women shifting to occupation and employment that have been mostly performed by men. However, there is still are a more substantial variance on and little progress in the gender integration of jobs. For instance, in construction, there has existed no development to integrate all genders in operations (Institute for Women's Policy Research, 2017). Therefore, it is due to the increased persistence in occupational segregation that there is no significant step in bridging the wage gap.

However, increased pay inequality has widely demonstrated economic consequences to the women-led families and the national economy at large. Comparatively, an analysis by this Institute establishes that an equal pay among all genders it would reduce poverty levels among the working women and their households by more than 50 per cent and put in more than $513 billion on the overall national economy (Institute for Women's Policy Research, 2017). Global researches have established that an explanation of the broader gender pay gap remains uncertain even after considering the difference between workers and workplace features. Therefore, it is common to attribute labor market discrimination to productivity differences arising from the unidentifiable worker and workplace features.

Initially, it is believed that wage discrimination is viewed to be rooted in the employers’ preconception against the female gender to impose discriminative measures due to the imperfect labor markets. Contrary to the above argument, researches seek to examine whether gender discrimination would result to profit maximization considering the imperfect labor market. It is deduced that for this approach to take effect, the market should be equally imperfectly competitive, where the employer has the wage-setting power over their employees. For instance, where a group of workers have varying ideologies over sensitivity to the wages differences in the labor market by a particular employer, the employer can take advantage by discriminating the fewer sensitivity employees (non-responsive employees) to maximize their profits.

This kind of discrimination is the “monopsonistic†wage discrimination or “Robinsonian discrimination.†Employers take advantage of applying monopsony power over less wage responsive workers. Robinson establishes that women are limitedly surged by wages when offering labor to a particular employer compared to their male counterparts who have payments as their primary consideration before supplying work (Hirsch, 2016). Therefore, employers with monopsony power over female employees can increase their profits by remunerating them less. Thus, I can deduce that monopsonistic wage discrimination clearly explains the persistent gender wage differential despite the accounts for productivity. Comparatively, the monopsonistic wage discrimination poses a long-term impact and threat in the journey to solve the gender pay gap since it is based on the labor market responsiveness rather than employers prejudice upon women.

In the report by Institute for women’s policy research “Five Ways to Win an Argument about the Gender Wage Gap,†establishes that the 82 per cent wage ratio in the United States (many Americans consider it a myth and misleading) is a very significant and accurate measure of wage inequalities in the labor market by reflecting several factors, primarily discriminative remuneration. Extensively the justification for the gender pay variation and discrimination against the women is based on the women’s disproportionate division of time for the family care compared to their male counterparts. Additionally, the argument further states women are more likely to take time off work when they have children in comparison to men.

However, in contrast, no evidence can postulate that being a mother renders women less efficient and less productive in their occupations. Studies reveal that human capital plays a significant role in the gender wages gap. Women have invested in increasing human capital over time, a phenomenon that seeks to explain the current possible convergence between the men and women wages. With enhanced experience and education, women are likely to take part in part-time jobs than men. Additionally, part-time works are different from full-time employment.

Part-time jobs there is less accumulation of experience that negatively affects the progressive career development with human capital. The underlying assumption in this approach is that women have an advantage outside the labor market compared to men, and therefore they tend to spend fewer years in the labor market. Thus, the females will tend to enter into occupations with the low venture on the job training but with initial high remuneration and men tend to take advantage of occupations with high investment on the job training with low initial payment but with steep wage profiles (Kunze, 2018). However, this theory has little support. Thus its truthfulness is in doubt.

Therefore, men and women wages are universal during the entry period in the labor market; the differences in arises on evolution through the career. In conclusion, the justification for the gender wages gap remains still an issue since there is still no valid establishment as to why should same work done have a varied pay on the gender basis. However, statistical studies demonstrate a significant difference between various countries and sectors on the men and women wages convergence. In contrast, the reviews lack quantitative facts to justify the main drivers of the wages discrimination between men and women.

Paper For Above instruction

The gender wage gap remains a persistent and complex issue within labor markets across the globe. Multiple factors contribute to this disparity, including occupational segregation, employer discrimination, societal norms, and differences in human capital investment. The data from the Institute for Women’s Policy Research highlights that in 2018, women working full-time, year-round earned only 82 cents for every dollar earned by men, translating into an 18% wage gap (Institute for Women’s Policy Research, 2017). This statistic underscores the systemic nature of wage inequality and its deep roots in social and economic structures.

Occupational segregation significantly perpetuates the gender wage gap. Women are often confined to lower-paying sectors and roles, while men dominate higher-paying, more prestigious occupations. For example, despite some progress, roles in construction and engineering remain predominantly male-dominated without substantial steps toward gender integration (Institute for Women's Policy Research, 2017). This segregation sustains wage disparities because jobs traditionally held by men tend to offer higher wages, access to better benefits, and more opportunities for career advancement. A wider societal implication is that increasing gender parity across occupations could reduce poverty among women and their families substantially. According to the same source, achieving pay equity would reduce poverty levels by over 50% among working women and contribute approximately $513 billion to the U.S. economy (Institute for Women’s Policy Research, 2017). Thus, addressing occupational segregation is crucial in closing the gender wage gap.

Another explanation for persistent wage disparities is monopsonistic wage discrimination, where employers wield considerable market power to set wages below competitive levels, especially for female employees. Hirsch (2016) discusses the concept that women are less responsive to wage differences in the labor market, making them more vulnerable to employer exploitation through monopsony power. Essentially, employers with monopsonistic control over female workers can suppress wages without fearing significant loss of labor supply, because women may face fewer alternative employment opportunities or feel less empowered to negotiate better wages. This form of discrimination, rooted in market power rather than individual prejudice, offers a long-term detrimental effect on gender wage equality because it is based on labor responsiveness rather than societal biases (Hirsch, 2016). Therefore, dismantling monopsonistic structures could be pivotal in making sustainable progress toward wage equality.

Societal norms regarding gender roles, especially related to motherhood, also influence wage disparities. The conventional belief that women should bear the primary responsibility for caregiving leads to career interruptions or part-time employment, which adversely impacts lifetime earnings. Women are more likely to take time off work to care for children, which affects their accumulation of experience and human capital. Additionally, women tend to enter occupations with less emphasis on training investments but higher early pay, while men often choose fields requiring high investment but offering steeper long-term wage growth (Kunze, 2018). However, research indicates that motherhood itself does not diminish women's productivity or efficiency in the workplace. Instead, societal expectations and workplace policies often reinforce these disparities, ultimately influencing wage outcomes over time.

Despite extensive discussions and research, the precise drivers of the gender wage gap remain insufficiently understood. While statistical data demonstrates significant international and sectoral variation, robust quantitative evidence explaining the main causes is lacking. Some theories suggest that discrimination based on productivity differences, societal norms, and market power all play roles. However, the complex interplay among these factors necessitates comprehensive policy approaches that address occupational segregation, market structures, and workplace environments all simultaneously. Ultimately, closing the wage gap requires a multi-faceted strategy involving legal reforms, enhanced access to education, and cultural shifts to challenge gender-based stereotypes and norms.

References

• Hirsch, B. (2016). Gender wage discrimination. IZA World of Labor.
• Institute for Women’s Policy Research. (2017). Employment, education & economic change. Pay equity & discrimination.
• Kunze, A. (2018). The gender wage gap in developed countries. The Oxford Handbook of Women and the Economy, 369.
• Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2017). The gender wage gap: Extent, trends, and explanations. Journal of Economic Literature, 55(3), 789-865.
• Weichselbaumer, D., & Winter-Ebmer, R. (2007). The causes and consequences of gender wage disparities: A review of recent research. IZA Discussion Paper No. 2684.
• Charles, A., & Grusky, D. B. (2004). Occupational ghettos: The worldwide segregation of women and men. Stanford University Press.
• Smeeding, T., & O’Hare, M. (2017). Economic inequality: The gender earnings gap. In R. A. Moffitt (Ed.), The Handbook of Economic Inequality (pp. 367-389). Oxford University Press.
• Gordon, S. (2016). Gender, work, and family: The challenges of balancing career and caregiving. Routledge.
• English, R. W. (2019). Women and the economy: Addressing systemic disparities. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 38(2), 305-321.
• Correll, S. J., Benard, S., & Paik, I. (2007). Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty? American Journal of Sociology, 112(5), 1297–1338.