The FT has reported this morning that the Institute for Economic Affairs, which is a hard right think tank, has criticised the new compulsory gender pay gap data that the government is requiring that about 9,000 companies employing 250 or more people in the UK now have to produce (although with a week to go half have yet to do so).
I read the report almost hoping that for once the IEA would not shoot themselves in the foot. But they did, saying this:
Julian Jessop, chief economist at the IEA, said the data were “frequently misunderstood and misrepresented”.
“Variations in hourly wages or bonuses between men and women are often interpreted as evidence of different pay for the same work,” he said.
“In reality, the main reasons why women earn less in some cases, and more in others, are differences in the type of job being done.”
I wanted to cringe, the comment is so desperate. Doesn't he realise that this is the whole issue the data is meant to reveal? The debate about equal pay for equal work was meant to be have been resolved in 1970. We all know it has not been, but highlighting data on that issue was not the purpose of this new data. The issue now is about precisely why women are not offered the same job opportunities as men, and so are paid less as a result.
But the Institute for Economic Affairs, existing in their own little bubble, have obviously failed to notice this.
In a sense we should be grateful to the FT. They show just how out of touch with reality right-wing thinkers really are. I should, however, add that this does not make them any less dangerous to well-being.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
As you say we are supposed to have been dealing with this issue since before the US came off the gold standard (something else we are only beginning to come to terms with).
What the conservative thinkers haven’t got their heads round at all, is the the extent to which women in the workforce are increasingly the bread winners of families rather than working for pin money.
Hollowing out the industrial, male dominated, economy has changed the field of employment beyond recognition, since 1970.
Not only Gender Pay Gaps, Richard!
Check this: https://www.channel4.com/news/what-are-the-prospects-for-uk-trade-after-brexit
Indeed
Unreal
All Jessop is saying is that the data is frequently misinterpreted. Which it is. See most any BBC story on the subject.
The data in the compulsory data on pay gap survey is a ridiculously blunt tool.
How will it help answer your question about why women earn less? What is there in the raw data that will help?
Why not join the debate instead of shouting insults at the IEA from the sidelines?
That is very clearly not what he is saying
“See most any BBC story on the subject.”
I’m afraid Auntie Beeb is not regarded as the authority (on anything) that she once was.
‘Why not join the debate instead of shouting insults at the IEA from the sidelines?’
Richard is clearly joining the debate here, but with honest and intelligent observations, not insults.
The debate is WHY is there a gender pay gap. So what’s Richard’s contribution to this debate? Other than saying that the IEA aren’t contributing to the debate?
I have always shown my commitment
Let me go back to my days as a partner in an accountancy firm
The firm had a majority of female partners from the day it was formed as a partnership and stayed that way until sold
And throughout female partners always had equal pay for time worked
And the firm always had a majority of female staff, appointed on merit
My contribution was on the ground then
Now it is to point out that this is the issue: that women are not being appointed on merit
The IEA does not seem to be recognising that
This is my contribution to debate
And I cam back up my claim
You’ve got to be kidding – right?
The IEA alluding to the bleedin’ obvious about unequal opportunity vs. unequal pay rates as if they were actually making a point.
“Cringe” is the right word.
Clarification – reply is to Juan Smith.
Disgusting that the clandestine IEA get so much media coverage, as if they were an independent think-tank with transparent funding, and no warning ever given
These organisations create and steer the debate, often with misinformation, and there is little doubt that they only exist to benefit their funders.
The way in which the BBC quotes and takes as rote most of what these think tanks come up with can be infuriating.
I wouldn’t shut them down but it would be nice if any mention of them in the media came with the description of their political leanings and funding. “And here is Mr X from the IEA to tell us what his report/research claims about a topic. The IEA is a right-leaning think tank which does not reveal the source of its funding”.
I’m sure a lot of people think these think tanks are official organisations whose research is beyond reproach. This caveat might make people note that this isn’t the case.
I think many of these think tanks are on a similar footing as, say, “The National Accident Helpline”, actually a private firm of ambulance chasers, sorry, ‘personal injury lawyers’, who have just given themselves a name to trick people into thinking they are an official body.
See also George Osborne’s ‘National Living Wage’ for similar disingenuousness.
Mariner says:
“The way in which the BBC quotes and takes as rote most of what these think tanks come up with can be infuriating.’
I agree it is extremely remiss of media to quote think tanks as if they were authoritative and somehow independent.
Independent of what? Certainly not of vested interest of their funders.
It’s not rally good enough. It would be interesting to see how often political affiliation of think tanks is signalled in references on BBC.
I suspect the proliferation of bodies which have initials has been quite deliberate and aims to obfuscate their intentions. I don’t know reliably which are government bodies, and therefore at least supposed to be impartial and objective and which are disguised lobbying groups. ( And I take more notice than the majority of the population).
For sure and for certain.
Notice the way that they all choose such bland, neutral-sounding, generically ‘authoritative’ names.
I am normally a bit reserved about attacking the BBC but it there is a case for a special campaign of complaint to made on this one particular point. The broadcasters have become to lazy and complacent in using these pseudo-academic lobby groups as source of reference without the declarations of interest and considerations of balance that should be made. Those declarations should be made on ethical grounds as a part of procedure.
Marco Fante says:
“I am normally a bit reserved about attacking the BBC ..”
You’ll get used to the idea, Marco.
It gets easier as they become more blatantly complacent in their lack of balance.
A balance incidentally which is not consistently either ‘left’ or ‘right’, just complacently smug.