From The Metro:
"Women earned an average of £2,875 in annual performance-related pay compared to £14,554 for men [in the financial sector]."
OK. Let's imagine women in the financial sector were paid an extra £5,840 gross and men paid £5,840 less to even things up.
Your starter for ten: How much of that extra £4,000-odd after tax would they just spend on uncomfortable shoes?
Bonus question: By how much would women married to men working in the financial sector have to reduce their spending on such fripperies?
On The Eleventh Day Of Trumpmas, Twitter Gave To Me…
53 minutes ago
4 comments:
Is the News article complaining that women perform over 5 times worse than men in finance roles?
unlike many indistries, in finance, performance related pay is supposedly doled out according to each trader's bottom line.
So the article is simply saying that women aren't as good as men in these roles. Not a very politically correct revelation I suppose, but there we are.
Rather meaningless comparisons, I'm afraid, because the article does not take account of which jobs within the financial industry the men and women are doing[1]. Are more men than women doing the jobs that traditionally pay much larger bonuses? e.g. Are more men than women traders, while more women than men work in HR?
[1] Perhaps the EHRC inquiry does.
Ed, of course the stat's are meaningless. Don't take it so seriously!
Post a Comment