re: Wage inequality and women

quote:

---

.are you saying your anecdotal evidence is better than the statistical analysis referred to in the Freakonomics books?

---

I'm saying that by using real life experience of myself and other females around me, I have not seen evidence of this. Ever. Most companies give you ~6 sick days. So if 12 are taken (one per month) then that is pay docked from that person, which would negate the whole "unfair" argument in the first place.

And my idiot comment was directed towards those who were just spitting out opinion, not facts. If I am an idiot, fine, but I am CERTAINLY not the only idiot in the present thread.

quote:

---

I'm saying that by using real life experience of myself and other females around me, I have not seen evidence of this. Ever. Most companies give you ~6 sick days. So if 12 are taken (one per month) then that is pay docked from that person, which would negate the whole "unfair" argument in the first place.

---

you didn't take that to mean they miss every month right? i find it hard to believe you don't know any women that have missed because they were cramping.

quote:

---

The person who posted said they noticed a trend of every 28 days... I would take that as every month, if a trend was able to be detected?

---

Couple things to keep in mind, this was an Italian company, and the sick time they are given over there is typically a lot more than we Americans are used to.

Furthermore, a person doesn't have to take the sick day EVERY 28 days for a trend to be detected. They could take a sick day for 2 consecutive cycles, not take a sick day for 1 cycle, then do it for 3 consecutive cycles, not take it for 2, take it for 1, not take it for 1, take it for 3, not take it for 1...etc. And an analysis would still be able to determine a trend.

Women are stupid and I don't respect them!

I found the quote from the book. It's on page 17 of Super Freakonomics:

quote:

---

The economists Andrea Ichino and Enrico Moretti, analyzing personnel data from a large Italian bank, found that female employees under forty-five years old tended to miss work consistently on twenty-eight-day cycles. Plotting these absences against employee productivity ratings, the economists determined that this menstrual absenteeism accounted for 14 percent of the difference between female and male earnings at the bank.

---

ETA: and here's the study citation.

The price of menstruation: see Andrea Ichino and Enrico Moretti, “Biological Gender Differences,
Absenteeism and the Earnings Gap,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 1, no. 1 (2009).


anyone have the ability to pull that up?

I don't doubt it happens. But in my opinion, with the medicine available today, women should no longer use this as an excuse to stay home. Unless there was some extreme case...

And it just takes a few to ruin it for us all. I often wish I worked with more men and less women because of the BS in the office.


I just think the original argument being that women take off more time and therefore are less knowledgeable/experienced being a justifiable reason they are paid less.. is not a good argument.

quote:

---

More beer please

---

It's a fact, in my world, what i stated. That I have never, nor women I have worked with to my knowledge, used their period as an excuse for staying home.


So, glad you think my input is interesting.

here's the summary of the study:

quote:

---

In most Western countries illness-related absenteeism is higher among female workers than among male workers. Using the personnel dataset of a large Italian bank, we show that the probability of an absence due to illness increases for females, relative to males, approximately 28 days after a previous illness. This difference disappears for workers age 45 or older. We interpret this as evidence that the menstrual cycle raises female absenteeism. Absences with a 28-day cycle explain a significant fraction of the male-female absenteeism gap. To investigate the effect of absenteeism on earnings, we use a simple signaling model in which employers cannot directly observe workers' productivity, and therefore use observable characteristics – including absenteeism – to set wages. Since men are absent from work because of health and shirking reasons, while women face an additional exogenous source of health shocks due to menstruation, the signal extraction based on absenteeism is more informative about shirking for males than for females. Consistent with the predictions of the model, we find that the relationship between earnings and absenteeism is more negative for males than for females. Furthermore, this difference declines with seniority, as employers learn more about their workers' true productivity. Finally, we calculate the earnings cost for women associated with menstruation. We find that higher absenteeism induced by the 28-day cycle explains 11.8 percent of the earnings gender differential.

---

quote:

---

The truth is, that is women really made 20% less than men for the same job, companies would be hiring them like crazy to help the bottom line.

---

Good point

Also, I believe they are comparing men and women in the same job.