On the employment of women

  wee eddie 16:28 02 Jun 2014
Locked

It is posited that women are able to perform most/all tasks as well as men, in some cases. better.

It is accepted that women's pay rates are approximately 30% below those of men.

Now it is my understanding of Capitalism and the Laws of Supply and Demand, that any Capitalist will tend to employ the cheapest source of available labour.

So, why is the workforce not made up, mostly, of women?

If one can employ a Female, for your Stock Exchange Dealing Room Floor at £3,000,000.00pa, why is that Workforce mostly made up of Males at £4,000,000.00 a head. It's not logical.

  wiz-king 16:57 02 Jun 2014

Now your stirring a hornets nest!

"It is accepted that women's pay rates are approximately 30% below those of men." but not if they are doing the same job.

  john bunyan 17:18 02 Jun 2014

wee eddie

"It is posited that women are able to perform most/all tasks as well as men, in some cases. better"

Maybe, but why did the England football team, just off to Brazil, contain no women? Maybe they would do better, as you say.

  Forum Editor 18:36 02 Jun 2014

"So, why is the workforce not made up, mostly, of women?"

Up to the age of around 22 there are as many women in work as men. After that, and until around age 50 there are more men in employment than women. If you think about it for a minute you'll realise that what happens is that young women start having babies, and staying at home to look after them in their mid twenties to early thirties, and that's why the ratio changes.

The current generation of young women are beginning to change all that, because they want to have their babies and get back to work earlier than their mothers did. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the statistics change quite dramatically over the next twenty to thirty years.

  wee eddie 18:46 02 Jun 2014

FE: it is not the Statistics that I am interested in and I am in agreement with you.

I was just reading an item on Keynesian Economic Theory and it occurred to me.

My thought was that as an Keynesian HR Manager I could cut the cost of my Workforce by between 20% & 30% by employing females rather than males, so why has this not happened?.

  canarieslover 20:00 02 Jun 2014

FE has hit the nail on the head. You could not run successfully with a workforce of child bearing age women. With things the way they are, my Daughter-in-Law has just taken a year off work to present me with my first Grandson and to spend time bonding with him, and I can't blame her for wanting to do that. In the meantime does an employer get a temp in to cover her absence or just try to get by with his existing staff? There must be an on-cost of training for the cover and even agency expenses if that route is necessary. Of course you could always carry 10% extra staff to cover these eventualities, which would negate the savings anyway. After returning to work, unless it is to a position where salary allows a Nanny to be employed, there is the ever threat of time off work if the child becomes sick. Employment of females is not quite as straightforward as some Equal Rights campaigners would have everyone believe.

  fourm member 20:11 02 Jun 2014

wee eddie

I think you're seeing the answer to your question right here.

The assumption is made that women are more costly/less productive than men so the salary difference doesn't pay in the end.

It's complete nonsense, of course, but as the saying should go, you can't teach old dinosaurs new tricks.

  carver 09:30 03 Jun 2014

john bunyan "Maybe, but why did the England football team, just off to Brazil, contain no women? Maybe they would do better, as you say."

A woman friend told me they would only need 8 players if the team was made up of women.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

WPA2 hack: How secure is your Wi-Fi?

HP’s new Surface Pro rival is designed specifically for Adobe-using designers and artists

Best kids apps for iPhone & iPad

Que faire si son iPhone ou iPad est tombé dans de l'eau ?