Talk:Gender pay gap in Australia

Major Quarrel

Could this article, and subsequently those of the same issue for other nations, be rewritten so as not to imply that the EARNING'S GAP is a product of simply being payed less for being a woman? There are a figurative shitload of studies and articles published on this matter, few of them cited in this very article. Additionally, I feel that the title ought to be altered as there is no gap between men and women in the same position and with the same duties come payday, rather men typically working higher-paying jobs than women and taking less time leave during their professional career. I'm not sure why gender inequality needs to be stressed in this article to the level that it is whilst also including citations to federally legislated Acts to ensure equality—it just seems like the author of the article had full intention of perpetuating the pay gap mythos in utter spite of the article's sources proving otherwise. One could easily get the wrong impression form this article and thus receive misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.117.246 (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I have made the change in line with the recommendation and have added a government reference stating that "the Gender pay gaps across the WGEA dataset are an indicator of women’s overall position in the workforce and do not compare like-for-like roles." Good pick up. Mustardseed1 (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Changed section title

I changed the title "Pay Equity in Australia" to "Trends in the Australian labor force" [1] because "Pay Equity in Australia" didn't quite reflect the content of the section. The section focuses on changes in women's so-called "human capital endowment", education in particular, and women's labor market participation and the fact that neither of those two factors, increased participation and better workplace characteristics, seems to have an effect on the pay gap. Therefore, I think the title "Trends in the Australian labor force" is more appropriate although I'm not perfectly happy with it. If anyone has a better suggestion for the section title, please go ahead and change it. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Potential for inaccuracy in figure

I noticed that the figure only accounts for the average take home pay on a weekly bases. This figure could be inaccurate as it doesn't take into account career choices, hours worked, and training. In the interest of balance, I propose that this is included in the article so people are informed about the potential issues with the statistic. That way, people won't be able to accuse the page of deliberately spreading misleading information, because it would disclose the way in which the information could be deemed as being inaccurate. --Davblayn (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I found this article on Crikey which substantiates my claim: http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/03/07/get-fact-do-men-make-much-more-than-women-for-the-same-job/. --Davblayn (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they think females should be paid more for the same work as men to get equal pay, good old discrimination in the guise of anti discrimination. Amazingly people who work less hours or work in lower paid jobs have a lower weekly pay average (they dont seem to understand this or just ignoring this fact). What % of my employees should be asian, handicapped, m to f pre op transexauls, who are gentically male but choose to be female, lesbian, 75 yr old socialists who vote liberal, with lower middle income background? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelawlollol (talk • contribs) 08:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gender pay gap in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206144556/http://dfat.gov.au/facts/women.html to http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/women.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/convde.pl?C100

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)