NPR discusses gender wage disparity, cites preposterously high starting wages as evidence

[Orrex]

Here's the article

NPR is running stories about the gender/wage gap this week, and today's program offered interesting data about the different styles that men and women use when negotiating salary. Women, according to the study, are hobbled by a need to seem "likeable" in the workplace, thereby limiting their ability to negotiate forcefully, resulting in a lower reward for their efforts. However, when negotiating on behalf of others, women are every bit as forceful and demanding as men, with nearly equivalent results. The article explores this dichotomy and makes some interesting observations, but I think that they chose a poor example to illustrate this point.

They played an example of two new job candidates, female and male, negotiating for their starting salary. The woman was offered $88K to start; when she asked instead for $92K, she had a decidedly tentative air, making her appear indecisive and thereby undercutting her own value.

The causes behind this are myriad and complex, but I'm sorry to say that the story sends a decidedly different message:

Who the hell is going to get upset if a new hire starts at only 176% of the median annual household income nationwide instead of 184%? I suspect that the prevailing sentiment would be "they can go screw themselves," in the same way that people respond to the assertion that $250K is only middle class.

Yes, $250K/year isn't a big deal on Park Avenue, and I'm sure that the $92K new hire is worth every penny and more, but when the intent is to address the general wage disparity between men and women, they would do well to remember who's tuning in.

NPR is really tin-eared in its framing of a story broadcast nationally to an audience that largely considers $88K to be a shitload of money, the same paycheck-to-paycheck audience that NPR is going to be shaking down for donations later this week.

[redqueen]

1. I heard that piece and I thought it was good.

I have 39 open positions for tech, sales, and management jobs with starting salaries from $70-$170k, the vast majority over $87k. Why is that so preposterous?

Also, I wouldn't frame the punitive consequences of a woman's assertive behavior in the workplace as a "need to seem likable".

[hfojvt]

6. it's preposterous because of this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4782267

"9 of the top 10 occupations in America pay an average wage of less than $35,000 a year"

and because of this (unfortunately I cannot read the XLS files to get more data)

http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-245.pdf

57 million one income households, have a median income of less than $34,000.

Until you have 30 million job openings that pay that much, to most Americans an $80,000 salary is a ton of money.

[redqueen]

7. Have you not noticed that when people mention the pay gap, an often used excuse is 'but negotiation'

As in, 'but women are bad at negotiating salaries and increases so that explains it,so its their own fault, so STFU'

This piece is discussing negotiation. Not the average wage for the most common jobs.

It is discussing negotiation because finally an administration is taking the issue of the pay gap seriously, so this week npr is focusing on it, and today, Equal Pay Day, they decided to address this particular excuse.

[hfojvt]

10. my own often used excuse

is that I have no sympathy for people who make $88,000 a year and whine to me "It's not fair. I am not making enough money."

Yeah, sure let's hit the streets and demand that female executives make just as much money as male executives.

I am sure the women who make $8 an hour cashiering at Wal-mart or Dollar General are all worried about that too. Who wouldn't be?

I can just see the huge rally we could hold.

What do we want?
Higher pay for rich people!!
When do we want it?
When hell freezes over!

An administration is finally taking it seriously? Obama made a speech. Clinton made the same speech back in 1997 or so.

But it's just like the Obama administration to be concerned about the top 20%. It's the bottom 80% that can go hang.

[redqueen]

11. The Paycheck Fairness Act helps women of all income levels.

Your attempt to use the narrow focus of this piece - negotiation, which as you have had explained to you repeatedly does not apply to all income levels - as a means to distort the issue to make it a divisive one is typical / hardly surprising.

[joeglow3]

26. I agree 100% with you, Redqueen

All too often, I just comment when I disagree with someone and it has been you many times. Felt I could take an opportunity to let you know I agree with you (as opposed to just not posting).

[hfojvt]

35. so your proof that you are right is based on

your accusation that I am a bad person.

What kind of an awful person would think that the bottom 80% should matter? It's the difficulties of people making 3-8 times my income that should count.

[Orrex]

18. I agree that's one of many factors

The radio piece itself cites multiple factors, and I believe that it even modifies the 77:100 ratio by accounting for other issues, reducing that disparity by 60% (which I think makes it a somewhat less glaring 92:100 difference). Again, I don't see the transcript on the page, and I couldn't take notes while driving.

Have you not noticed that when people mention the pay gap, an often used excuse is 'but negotiation' as in, 'but women are bad at negotiating salaries and increases so that explains it,so its their own fault, so STFU'

The article explicitly makes the point--which you seem not to contest--not that women are "bad at negotiating" but that women do negotiate differently on their own behalf. If the article is correct in this regard, what do you think is the reason that women negotiate differently for themselves? How might this be addressed?

I don't see it as a "STFU" admonition at all. Far from it, in fact. It appears to be saying "women are skilled negotiators, but they face different stressors when negotiating for themselves and therefore tend to do so less effectively."

[redqueen]

19. NPR is not throwing this into a discussion about the pay gap.

It is addressing this issue - which is often used as a talking point.

Yes, research shows that women are correct to be careful when discussing salary. It is only those who use this issue as a talking point to stifle and derail these discussions who frame it as women being 'bad at negotiating'.

As for the reason and how to address it? It is dismaying that you have to ask me. I'll just say that this is why I am a radical feminist.

[Orrex]

21. As a radical feminist, how do you feel that NPR is addressing the issue?

By identifying that women employ less effective tactics while negotiating for themselves than while negotiating for others?

As for the reason and how to address it? It is dismaying that you have to ask me. I'll just say that this is why I am a radical feminist.

It's dismaying to me that you won't answer. Obama's proposed legislation won't help, because it's sure as hell not going to make it through the House. If the POTUS can't address it, outside of Executive Orders affecting only federal workers, then how is the average citzen supposed to address it in a useful, tangible fashion?

What, in short, could I possibly do to affect the issue?

[redqueen]

23. They addressed the fact that women HAVE TO employ less effective tactics.

They didn't approach the issue from a "Why are both men and women so hostile toward confident, assertive women?" POV

They approached it from a "What can professional women do in order to be treated fairly?" POV, and the answer was, more or less, 'Ask nicely - but ask.'

As for what you can do? Personally? Just be aware of the ubiquitous limitations put on women from cradle to grave by the patriarchy (again, both women and men help with reinforcing society's patriarchal dictates), and call it out when you see it, because most people don't, and until that changes, we are left with asking nicely to be treated fairly.

Oh, and hope that people aren't so sold on the idea that both parties are the same that we can get more Dems in office. Hopefully the strategy of pushing a bill that forces the GOP to take a stand for sexism and unfairness will help.

[Orrex]

25. Good post.

As for what you can do? Personally? Just be aware of the ubiquitous limitations put on women from cradle to grave by the patriarchy (again, both women and men help with reinforcing society's patriarchal dictates), and call it out when you see it, because most people don't, and until that changes, we are left with asking nicely to be treated fairly.

Oh, and hope that people aren't so sold on the idea that both parties are the same that we can get more Dems in office. Hopefully the strategy of pushing a bill that forces the GOP to take a stand for sexism and unfairness will help.

[Orrex]

9. "Preposterous" relative to the national median income, rather than industry standards

And preposterous for NPR to expect that a man or woman working 50 hours a week for $7.25 or less is going to care if a man or woman starts at a $88K versus $92K per year. Obviously certain fields will support higher starting wages, but if the story's purpose was to illustrate the challenges facing women who seek wage equity, then I don't expect that it will generate much sympathy among the men and women working very hard to earn 80% less.

Also, I wouldn't frame the punitive consequences of a woman's assertive behavior in the workplace as a "need to seem likable".

Well, I was driving, so I couldn't take detailed notes. It was my impression that the story itself made the point not that it's an explicitly punitive response but that women are conditioned to foster "likeability" and might therefore be less inclined to argue robustly on their own behalf. Perhaps I misunderstood the intent in this regard?

[redqueen]

12. You interpreted this piece as a means to garner sympathy? Why?

It is, as I said above, addressing an all too commonly used talking point - that the pay gap is due to women's negotiating skills. Skills which, as Nay has helpfully explained, do not often apply for those of us in the working class.

Regarding a woman's "need to seem likable", the linked piece has the transcript.

[Orrex]

15. I don't believe that the transcript was available when I first posted

In fact, I still can't see it on my current browser, despite doing a hard refresh.

Regardless, here's the excerpt from the article that seems central to me:

Amanatullah says when women advocate for themselves, they have to navigate more than a higher salary: They're managing their reputation, too. Women worry that pushing for more money will damage their image. Research shows they're right to be concerned: Both male and female managers are less likely to want to work with women who negotiate during a job interview.

You seem to dismiss this as a "talking point," but IMO it's the entire point of the piece, that women do in fact negotiate differently when they negotiate for themselves, because they're aware of the likely repercussions, in a way that men don't need to be aware. The article even states specifically that women's skills at negotiation aren't at issue, but rather that they employ less effective tactics when negotiating for themselves.

As for my impression that the piece is intended to garner sympathy, well, what's the alternative? That it's intended to make listeners apathetic about gender-based income disparity? That it's intended merely to inform listeners about the shocking inequity between starting at 176% versus 184% of the median national income?

[redqueen]

20. Your framing is revealing.

"the shocking inequity between starting at 176% versus 184% of the median national income?"

So, unfairness is ok in some cases then.


Again, NPR is not using this as a talking point. They are addressing this issue, which is all too often used as a talking point.


Your subject line is misleading.

Thy are discussing negotiating tactics, which don't apply to working class jobs, and (of course) using wages which those negotiating tactics usually apply to as an example in that discussion.

[Orrex]

24. Self-deleted my original reply because of its unfairly shitty tone

"the shocking inequity between starting at 176% versus 184% of the median national income?"

So, unfairness is ok in some cases then.

It's not that "unfairness is ok in some cases," but rather that vast inequity necessarily demands more immediate attention than lesser inequity. It's basic triage, along the lines of treating a patient who's having a heart attack before treating the patient with a paper cut. I'm more inclined to care about the person who can't afford rent than about the person who has to decide where to spend their vacation this year, for example.


I'm less confident than you are that the proposed legislation will truly help all income levels, though it's interesting that it seeks to protect workers who openly discuss their wages. I suppose we'll have to wait and see.


On a broader stage, it's interesting that DUers gravitate toward different issues of social injustice. Some focus more intently on gender, some on race, and some on class. All are valid struggles, and it's unfortunate that it can sometimes cast fundamental allies as fundamental enemies.

[redqueen]

37. If you want to talk triage, then all any of us should be doing is fighting like hell

to reverse global warming, and slow the destruction of entire ecosystems.

We aren't enemies, we have different passions. Different areas that we focus on, though I doubt any real DUer is solely focused 100% on any one issue.

I don't derail discussions about living wages with comments about how future generations won't be worrying about a living wage to maintain if we don't drastically change our standard of living.

I trust DUers to know, and I trust that they are doing the best they can to change at least something about this world for the better. If someone is actively pushing things that are counter to my goals I call it out. I try not to hijack other people's efforts to improve things.

[2banon]

17. Job Seeker here.....

What is your company and where is it located? Love to discuss management position with you..

[Tuesday Afternoon]

27. redqueen, when can I set up an interview? for real. willing to relocate if necessary.

[oldhippie]

2. I found the stats for my undergraduate alma mater ......

... and they are interesting. Down at the bottom of the link they show salary by gender.

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/School=Clarkson_University_-_Potsdam%2c_NY/Salary#facebookFriendsDiv

[Nay]

3. I understand your point, but I think NPR is using that sort of wage not

because they have a tin ear but because wages much lower than that aren't 'negotiable' - IOW, the applicant who is sitting in an office and is offered a job at $35,000 KNOWS that the wage is pretty much non-negotiable because there are 10 other people out in the waiting room waiting to be interviewed who would jump at the 35 thou.

It's only at a certain (higher) level where salaries are negotiable because employers want certain upper level skills that are not present in the general population. I have my own ideas about that, but I would be going off topic.

[hfojvt]

4. that's what I said

and of course, I got insulted.

We are advertising for a position. The ad says $11.80 an hour.

And that's that. If you will accept $11.80 an hour, then apply and interview for the job. But nobody will be able to interview, get offered the job and then say "I will take this job, but I want $13 an hour".

Doesn't matter how assertive they are. If they are offered the job, the job they are offered pays $11.80 just as advertised.

[Orrex]

5. I wondered about that, in fact

At the risk of bragging (ha ha), I can state that I've never had an opportunity to "negotiate" a starting salary, subsequent raises, or bonuses, and I suspect that most of the nation's workforce is in a similar position.

[hfojvt]

8. I might say the same thing

but there was one exception. I got a higher paying job and gave notice, and my employer said "wait a minute, I can pay you more". And thus, I negotiate the massive salary of $7.15 an hour (and no benefits).

I bet that story would make those women ashamed of meekly settling for $80,000.

[Orrex]

13. LOL. I was reluctant to use the term "meek" because I'm sure they kick plenty of ass

And I don't doubt that they have entirely understandable anxieties about how her "negotiation" might affect her future interactions on the job. It's an ugly catch-22: ask too gently and risk getting less than you're worth; ask too strongly and risk getting less than you're worth.

The pressure no doubt manifests in all kinds of subtle and un-subtle ways, and I'm endlessly reminded of the situation my friend faces in IT. If she makes a mistake (which is very rare), there's an underlying default attitude of "well, she's a girl." But when a coworker screws up, the default attitude is "well, that was a tough problem," even when it's not.

A tough balancing act, I'm sure, whether you make $30K or $100K.

[hfojvt]

14. hard to tell

I am wondering if "she's a girl" isn't a nice bullet-proof vest.

Because I don't get "well, that was a tough problem"

what I get is "you suck at your job".

So be it then. My plan is to negotiate for a demotion. But considering the new law, I can also start searching for teaching jobs.

[Orrex]

16. I can't speak to your own circumstances, but...

I interact with my entire IT group regularly, and I can state with confidence both that she's the sharpest member of the team and that she faces increased scrutiny/repercussions for her (rare) missteps.

YMMV.

[BainsBane]

28. Ah, the old they make more than I do

and don't deserve it. I heard that a lot during the union busting days of the Reagan administration. And people wonder why the standard of living for average Americans has declined.

You do get that those salaries were examples for the story, not median income?

[KansDem]

31. I don't believe that was the argument...

Ah, the old they make more than I do and don't deserve it.

I think it's more like "They're offered more than I make but want more so they negotiate" and that causes confusion. My careers have been in the public sector (schools, libraries, etc.) and in every instance, I knew what I'd be making going into the job. It didn't matter your race, ethnicity, age, gender, etc., you knew what you'd be making from the salary schedule advertised with the job description, and that didn't waver.

I think where people make the mistake is, they read or hear about someone offered a job at twice or thrice their wages, then are dumbstruck when that person wants more so he or she negotiates. That might tend to rub some people the wrong way.

[TheFrenchRazor]

44. i think that's exactly what the argument was. nt

[frazzled]

29. Average household income of NPR listeners is $93K

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Listenership

So they hit their "average" viewer dead on the nose with that story. I think your argument errs when it presumes that the average wage earner is the average NPR listener.

[Orrex]

30. Interesting. And problematic.

I didn't realize that this statistic was available. Certainly helps to solidify the impression that NPR goes for a certain elite appeal.

[frazzled]

34. Why is it problematic? All media outlets have a demographic.

Would it be problematic to have a radio network that appeals to young people with hip-hop music? Are there country and western stations?

I'd only find it problematic if NPR were being mainly supported by the government. Since it's not, and hasn't been for many decades, they should be able to appeal to the demographic that foots their bills and tunes in: the listeners who donate and purchase memberships.

[Orrex]

36. Problematic because, as I stated, it fosters the image of an elitist media outlet

And it reasonably invites comparisons to Fox News, an unapologetically biased media outlet.

NPR accepts major funding from huge corporations and is often taken to task for its corporate-friendly reporting. It's problematic because NPR postures itself as a bastion of serious journalism and this, coupled with running its sales pitch for the 90K crowd, does little to contradict that impression.

YMMV. I'm of an income level that inclines me to tire of stories about the hardships faced by people earning close to twice the national median income. NPR is welcome to run those stories, but it shoudn't be surprising that some might take issue with this.

[frazzled]

38. Blame the Republicans

It was they, during the culture wars of the early 1990s, with the "Gingrich revolution," who slashed federal funding to NPR, CPB, the NEA, and NEH. If NPR was going to continue at all, it had to turn to the public and to corporations for funding to exist.

What other radio is doing stories about income disparity by gender AT ALL? What other radio does not depend on corporate money (via ownership or advertising)? I'll tell you: pretty much NONE.

So I don't really see why you are picking on NPR.

[Orrex]

40. Mostly I pick on NPR for softballing Republicans and badgering Democrats

It was they, during the culture wars of the early 1990s, with the "Gingrich revolution," who slashed federal funding to NPR, CPB, the NEA, and NEH. If NPR was going to continue at all, it had to turn to the public and to corporations for funding to exist.

Although necessary, this is likewise problematic because it more or less unavoidably creates the appearance of bias. I haven't heard any hard-hitting stories about Walmart or McDonalds, for instance, certainly no more sharp-edged than anything you'd see on ABC or CNN.

I pick on NPR because I hold them to a higher standard than Top 40 or Sports Talk stations.

[Xithras]

32. $88k is preposterously high? That's middle class, and doesn't even put you in the top 20%

It's technically not even upper middle class, as most scales put the floor on upper middle class as the "top 15%-20% up to the top 6%" (above which you get into the upper classes. $88k is just "middle class". That's also the income range where gender wage disparity tends to be the worst. Low wage hourly jobs tend to pay the same hourly wage whether you're a man or a woman. Working class jobs don't generally have a large problem with hourly wage disparities either, and instead suffer from problems related to availability of working hours (men are given preferential scheduling). Uncorrected wage disparities are at their worst in white collar working environments where wages and raises are negotiated or set on an individual basis, because it can allow management bias and other factors to heavily impact the daily pay of each worker.

I work in an environment where everyone's wages are negotiated. You hammer out a wage when you're hired, and then all raises are negotiated on request based off of that starting salary. If you don't know what you're doing, you can really undermine your wages or your long term job prospects. We recently had a software architect "released" after management decided that he wasn't worth the $95k a year he'd negotiated when he was hired. Why? Because another programmer was doing almost the same job for $20k a year less, and turning out similar quality product. The guy oversold himself and couldn't deliver a superior product that merited the higher pay rate. He negotiated more salary than he was worth to the company. Working in an environment with negotiated salaries can be brutal and can lead to HUGE disparities in pay between people who are doing almost identical jobs.

Once you factor out other issues, such as work hours, educational attainment, etc., these professional jobs tend to rise to the top as the worst offenders when it comes to gender pay inequality. I know for a FACT that I'm making roughly $15k a year more than the woman who works a few cubicles over from me, even though we have similar jobs. That's the sort of thing that really needs to be addressed.

[Orrex]

33. It's preposterously high to a preposterously large segment of the population, yes.

Last edited Tue Apr 8, 2014, 04:13 PM - Edit history (1)

Once you factor out other issues, such as work hours, educational attainment, etc., these professional jobs tend to rise to the top as the worst offenders when it comes to gender pay inequality. I know for a FACT that I'm making roughly $15k a year more than the woman who works a few cubicles over from me, even though we have similar jobs. That's the sort of thing that really needs to be addressed.

Out of curiosity, how might this be addressed in your work environment?

[Xithras]

39. Make compensation data available to other employees.

Or at least require that the median wage of other employees with the same job title be available to employees, so that negotiators have some frame of reference. I know what we make because I get to deal with payroll data from time to time. She has no idea that she's making so much less than me, and I'd get fired if I told her.

There are 19 men and two women in my department. The two women rank last, and fourth from last in compensation. Neither of them have any clue. If the median department wage were available to them, they'd realize how badly they're getting screwed. The top guy in my department (NOT management, just a guy who is a great negotiator and has been around a while), makes nearly $40k a year more than our lowest paid woman, and they do almost identical jobs.

[Orrex]

41. I agree with that 100%

Prohibitions against discussions of salary are no benefit to employees.

I won't ask the particulars of your workplace pay structure, but do the lowest-paid workers have the same qualifications, experience, and seniority as the highest-paid?

And how did you happen to come by such detailed information about everyone's pay rate?

[Xithras]

42. Honestly

I cheated

As I said in my first comment, I work with our payroll department from time to time and have access to their databases. I've looked myself up just to see how I compare with everyone else. Most employees don't have that luxury.

I'm fully aware that there are a lot of factors that are considered when determining compensation, but making the data available would still be beneficial. If the median wage for a particular title in a particular department is $75k a year, and an employee is making $68k a year and getting turned down for raises, it gives them a reason to inquire further about the disparity. Maybe they have less education that everyone else in the department. Maybe they have less seniority. At a minimum, it gives the employee valuable information that can then be used to pursue additional education, to stick around for a while, or to take other measures that will address the pay gap. That assists employees of both genders, but particularly helps the women who tend to be disproportionately impacted by these kinds of disparities.

[Orrex]

43. Well, as long as you cheated honestly. (nt)