Gender Wage Gap: Occupational Segregation vs. Personality

Introduction: The Scope of Gender Wage Disparities

Gender-based wage disparities continue to reflect serious issues of concern (Hirsch, 2008). Major gaps remain for women. A 2008 article captured considerable interest with its straightforward declaration that "across-the-board figures from February this year indicate that full-time female employees earned an average $1,004 a week compared to full-time male average weekly earnings of $1,190" (The Lamp, 2008). Others have sought to use dramatic figures as a way of heightening awareness of the disparities. Noting that for those who earn upwards of $1,000,000 annually the ratio of men to women is 13:1 is as striking a comment as is the fact that income equality does not even begin to appear until one looks at earnings of approximately $25,000 to $30,000 (Lips, 2003, p. 87).

Baron and Cobb-Clark (2009, p. 229) express concern that, as they put it, "Forty years after the 1969 Equal Pay Case there continues to be a substantial gap in the wages of Australian men and women." This is in part why Kee (2006) drew on the most descriptive of conditions to reflect how Australia has both "sticky floors" and "glass ceilings." Sticky floors prevent those near the bottom from overcoming obstacles to pull themselves up, while glass ceilings severely limit the ability of some to achieve their highest potential, even when they have the drive and talent to do so.

Occupational Segregation and the Wage Gap

The reasons why these disparities exist can be complex, often overlapping on many fronts. New conceptualizations have helped to clarify this from two rather distinct viewpoints. One centers on the controversial classification of occupational segregation and the idea that some people — usually assumed to be women — choose certain professions that simply pay or reward worse than do others. The second turns more inward, toward the psychology and even biosocial factors that contribute in some way to the forming of workers' personalities, which is itself seen as differing between men and women. A brief review of the occupational segregation and psychological personality explanations is provided here to demonstrate why their differences matter, given how women are becoming increasingly important in the global universe of wage earners.

Kee (2006, p. 424) has simplified the issue of wage and gender earning gaps by stating that "both labour market demand and supply side factors might be relevant." Others, like Hirsch (2008), went into more detail as he walked step-by-step through a summation of much of the work in the field. He begins by disputing the claim that there is any realistic expectation that people will ever earn a single uniform "one price" wage (Hirsch, 2008, p. 916). People are paid what they are because of a wide range of conditions. To comprehend this, he suggests, it is necessary to dig deeper now that data can be more precisely analyzed, so that results do not have to be so closely tied to past, often male-oriented assumptions: "Census imputation methods, union premiums, product market regulation, wages in male and female jobs, the wage effects of military service, and inter-area wages and cost of living" (Hirsch, 2008, p. 915). Science has confirmed that these factors are important and that they explain some portion of the relationships between themselves and other earning variables. Even so, together they explain only a portion of the bigger picture of what produces wage and earning gaps (Cobb-Clark & Tan, 2010, p. 2). The unexplained parts could result from outright discrimination or from historically biased ways of using data that favor men and rely on imprecise ideas (Kee, 2006, p. 424). It could well be the case that jobs in which women tend to be more prevalent are not as carefully monitored, making it impossible to know precisely what is happening with wages and earnings — a concern that has prompted deeper reassessments of the methodological foundations of this research (Coelli, 2011; Watts, 2004).

Australian Evidence on Occupational Segregation

Studies on occupational segregation suggest that if women were not constrained to do otherwise, they would, like men, be better able to position themselves in jobs that earn or are valued more (Bertrand, 2010, p. 1547). Though somewhat simplistic, this is consistent with other analyses examining the impact of gender wage disparities and globalization (Oostendorp, 2009). The virtual shrinking of the world brought about by technological connectivity should allow women to find more types of work and command better pay and benefits. Such circumstances would bring about an equalizing of wages and otherwise put women in a position to claim more of their worth (Oostendorp, 2009, p. 142).

Kee's (2006, p. 409) study was directly designed to test whether the sticky floor or the glass ceiling exists in Australian public sector employment and earnings. What was uncovered was that there is indeed a wage gap for lower-earning — and thus more segregated — public sector employees that cannot be explained by educational qualifications or other demographic factors alone. In Australia, the evidence suggests clearly that occupational differences have an important impact (Coelli, 2011, p. 27). Experience outside of government appears to be important for the wage levels of lower earners. At the same time, occupational segregation associated with part-time work, casual work, and union membership does not appear to align with studies elsewhere that suggest women are harmed in their earnings by these arrangements (Baron & Cobb-Clark, 2009). Australians often receive premium benefits when they work in these types of positions (Baron & Cobb-Clark, 2009, p. 241). The fact that public sector employees are aware of this may be fostering a sense that changes in laws to end discrimination are actually working, in the same way that scientific improvements are producing less gender-biased methods of data collection (Lips, 2003, p. 90).

Conclusion: Toward a Fuller Understanding of the Gap

There is no question that the majority of studies on the gender wage gap tend to look at structural issues covering a broad range of concerns as they seek to explore their connection to earnings mistreatments or even discrimination. But as scientists have begun digging deeper into the available data, they are gaining confidence that more can be learned. They are also finding that certain past assumptions — such as the belief that occupational segregation is always harmful to those it keeps away from earning opportunities — are not always supported. Australian women in public sector jobs, particularly at lower levels, no longer appear as fully susceptible to these expectations, in part because there is a growing consensus that the data being used is more reflective of the realities that women actually experience.