how are women not equal in the workplace?

[Darien.]

I know gender roles play a large part of it, like women taking jobs that are typically lower paying "female jobs" like nursing, retail, childcare, etc. and also taking part time jobs as opposed to full time ones so they can be there for kids/family members since that is expected of them.

but are there any other factors? What are possible solutions?

if you want to be super nice you could go into detail about the __(insert one or more of the below)__ of the solutions:

-feasibility
-cost
-safety
-effectiveness
-efficiency
-institutional/social goals
-time
-trade-offs
-aesthetics


i'm writing a long essay on women's inequality in the workplace, but i'm having a difficult time laying the ground work
and when i say unequal i mean in relation to men

[L]

The differences in the workplace for women are their diiferent attitudes. When one is positive, then she gets positive results, is willing to learn, gets the job done easily and fast, but if one is negative then everything turns out negative around her too. Also some factors that make them not equal are : some are more skilled than others, more talented, more intelligent, more experienced and etc.

[Common Sense]

The best study about the wage gap, and what causes it, is the Consad report. You can read it here:

http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Ge...Report.pdf

As you will see, it explains that the differences in work between men and women are almost entirely due to different choice men and women freely make, so in my opinion there is no solution - Let people freely pick the jobs they desire. (Also of note, is that it's illegal to pay women less for the same work now).

My guess is you assignment is based on the idea of "equivalent worth", which is for the most part a feminist pushed idea saying that the naturally lower paying jobs women sometimes chooses, should by law have to be paid as much as higher paying jobs held by men. For example, secretaries would have to be paid as much as high rise construction workers.

Any time you try to force rates other than natural market rates you run into trouble. In the above case, if you raise secretary rates and lower the construction rates, supply and demand dictates you will have a lack of supply for the construction jobs and excess supply (unemployment) for the secretary jobs. The vast majority of economists argue very strongly against such policy. Its' been tried and failed miserably.

Quote and source on that here:

"In 1984, Minnesota became the first (and so far, the only) state to mandate that all local units of government devise and implement comparable worth schemes. St. Paul is a city whose experience with the law typifies that of local government across the state: $32 million in additional salary expense between 1985 and 1992, endless disputes about who is comparable to whom, and lingering uncertainty if the city is even in compliance with the law at all.
In his authoritative 1993 book, Incomparable Worth, University of Virginia economist Steven E. Rhoads showed that after depressing the wages of computer specialists and nurses in order to achieve “pay equity,” Minnesota localities can’t find people willing to take those jobs. Women, according to Rhoads’ findings, are not clear winners when labor markets are distorted and wages are set by politics and politicians."

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/...worthless/

Another example - Some fire departments in order to get more female employees, lowered the standard for women to enter. For example, they had to carry less weight and many could not raise a ladder as males could. The safety consequences of that should be clear.

In terms of efficiency - Anytime you force rates, or force people into jobs that are not what they are best suited for, you usually end up with a less efficient system - Basic labor economics.

[Castaño Ervakker]

Well check this out. I used to work at Target and they would nominate an employee for best worker of the month or whatever. But not once did anyone ever nominate a female employee.