I find this a bit sad. It's definitely encouraging that women are getting better wages. But men are earning the same real wage they were back in 1979.
It's possible that, in the past, the wage bias against women actually resulted in a wage subsidy to men. They received some of the surplus value that women generated. In this picture then, what gains men achieved in productivity were shifted to women who were able to take home a larger proportion of the value they created.
Given that wage inequality has increased the way it has over this period, I suspect there is more to the story.
It's also possible there never was a wage bias and this is just capturing changes in the way and amount women work. But it's unlikely, and certainly isn't the kind of thing you should say in company.
The most obvious explanation is the baby factor. In NZ, unpaid work (cleaning, caregiving, and shopping) is worth $40b year (more than the GDP, I believe), and approx 70% of this is performed by women.
Could we conclude that the increase in women’s pay is at least partly explained by an increase in the amount of paid work performed by women? And even that the share of all work, paid and unpaid, done by women has been increasing?
Bec / 5:00pm / 29 October 2007
That wouldn’t be the direct explanation because it’s the median wage of working women. Increasing the number of women in work wouldn’t increase the median wage. Except through the fact that women working more may lead to women getting better jobs.
I’ve heard estimates that the informal economy might be 40% of the total economy, which is close to what you’ve said. It’s very hard to measure though. I don’t even know how they do it actually. I’ve just heard that it’s hard.
Ryan / 11:41pm / 29 October 2007
i believe women still work a higher percentage of the lower paying jobs – this would certainly contribute to a lower median wage.
christina / 9:10am / 30 October 2007