Are Men Losing Their Jobs to Women who will Work for Less?
In light of the Pay Fairness Act before Congress, I'd like to know if anyone has any information on this.
Yes. But in the US this all happened in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, when women flooded into the workforce, roughly doubling the number of workers competing for jobs. It is one reason wages have not risen much in the last few decades. Basic economics, raise the supply of a resource, automatically reduce the price.
I had not thought of it in terms of labor for supply. Thanks.
"Basic economics, raise the supply of a resource, automatically reduce the price."
Maybe a tad *too* basic! You must consider demand. Outsourcing and ever-increasing productivity per worker are trends better matching the rise of unemployment.
I guess it depends where you are standing. As a woman I have noticed that men are hired for positions that I was more qualified for and paid more, so I have not observed this.
Men are losingg thier jobs to ANYONE who will work for less , been there done that ! IIlegals , legals , woman , child , no matter . If you think that corporate America cares about you as a worker at all , think again. Its all about the $$$$. The whole green card issue is about legalized slavery , whats next childhood worker restriction easments?!
Agree. The issue of women taking jobs from men is basically over and done. Current job pressure is against US minorities and youth who are competing for entry level jobs with immigrants.
I agree - there is discrimination against older workers like myself, even though it's illegal - hard to prove
Some wonder if men are losing jobs to women because women will accept a lower pay rate for the same job in America. However, government labor statistics show that in January - end of April 2012, over twice as many women were lost out of the eorkfore as were men. Men had lost jobs to women only in 2009 and part of 2010, with a reverse trend continuing into May 2012. read more
I really don't think sex is the issue in hiring anymore, except the fact that men are still paid more in comparison to women. What has happened is the lack of camaraderie between employer and employee that we once had prior to sharks attacking the workforce in the name of "Bain Capital."
I had a job with in a university psychiatry department. The university was turned into a public corporation and downsizers were hired by the new coporate board. Soon our cozy little department was turned into a battle ground with 25% a year turnover.
There are jobs - such as in microtechnology - that are given to women in the Far East, low-paid by and large but not offered to men anyway because women's fingers are generally smaller. Where I worked at Royal Mail the women were on the same pay level as the men but were exempted from some jobs because of the nature of the work (as in heavy lifting, where most of the women were smaller than their male colleagues, and fork-lift drivers. But that job was restricted to owners of fork-lift certificates, and none of the women had ever trained on that job). In India work on decommissioning ships is given to men and young boys, but the work is considered unsuitable for women. It is very poorly paid and workers put in 14-hour days on average.
In Britain again, jobs are held aside for women in office jobs at certain sites because the employers won't take on men for that work (I remember at Woolworth's in the late 60's, no men were taken on to work in their offices).
If employers won't take on men for a particular job, no amount of legislation will change their minds. We have an Equal Pay Act in Britain that goes back to the 1980's, but it doesn't force employers to hire men.
Thank you for the insight about so many places. I was wondering where ships were decommissioned and why old boats sold for so much. Now I'm getting an idea. It was a male's job when we did it in the U.S., but now I guess American wages are too high.
I do not think women are getting jobs from men and being paid less. I think jobs are being designed with women in mind and are starting at lower salaries. Thus, as they progress up the ranks, they make more money. Some of the jobs would had been filled by men in the past at a higher starting pay. Now job titles have changed making it easier for employers to get past the gender issue at the outset and deal with that later as the capability of the employee becomes more evident.
However, there is still some discrimination.
For example, there are no more secretaries. Everyone is an administrative assistant. In the city where I use to live, the person who was point man for the mayor was an administrative assistant. In my last job, besides being Public Relations Director, I was administrative assistant to the president. We have two secretaries. One had the title of office manager--she was in charge of supplies and the other who was receptionist-secretary--rather self-explanatory. We change job titles later, but the duties did not change. Today, if the administrative assistant position is for a woman, it will require a "pleasant telephone voice." If it is for a man, it will require "ability to delegate." Some position, probably the same pay. However, the man with the ability to delegate will move up the ladder faster than the woman with the pleasant telephone voice.
All I know is that over the years, a very sizable number of women have told me that the primary reason why they work on a job is they get very bored staying home with the kids all day.
No. Women are paid less because corporate society value it less. Men lose their jobs based on the economics, not on women being willing to work for less pay.
No information on that legislation however.
I would phrase the question slightly differently: Are employers hiring women to save money when they can get away with paying women less for equal work?
Ask it that way, and look at history, and the answer is yes, clearly, some employers do that. Listen to the Peggy Seeger song "I want to be an engineer" for details. In England, when hard times struck, male machinists (engineers) were laid off and women hired in their place.
Yes, it is true since the competition level between woman and man has given raise to above problem. growing poverty, unemployment and insecurity are contributory factors.
by Dr Billy Kidd 7 years ago
Why Did Republicans Vote Down Equal Pay for Women?The Republicans in the Senate voted against a bill that would have helped women benefit from the 1963 Equal Pay Act. Employers would have had to prove that it was job performance, not discrimination, that created the pay difference. It would have...
by kirstenblog 9 years ago
Or would you accept a job where you are being asked to cover two positions, one of which is an hour away in decent weather (this is on foot, no car and I don't drive anyway) that will result in there being situations where you know you will not be able to fulfil your duties and believe that this...
by Credence2 6 years ago
It has got to be an employer's market, a cousin of mine called and said that he got a job. The employer said that he was to work part time and was expected to be on call virtually at all times the store was open. Of course, no benefits outside the crappy compensation. What the hell is going on...
by And Drewson 8 years ago
Some would argue that, since women tend to get paid less than men, a woman has to work harder/longer.Well, what do you think?
by Freegoldman 4 years ago
Is there any particular reason for it,,,,,,
by Grace Marguerite Williams 4 years ago
Why is it NAIVE, EVEN UNREALISTIC to contend that people who have been terminated/firedobtain better jobs or go on to become even more highly successful when in fact they get WORSE jobs & never fulfilling their career/success potential, even becoming abject failures? I was strongly...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|