Gender Pay Gap – Between numbers and propaganda

There was a time when there was still an open market of ideas. Feminism was not the establishment (or the man) and thus it was still open for questioning. One of the first arguments that appeared on that (still) open market from the feminist camp was the argument that is generically called the gender pay gap (GPG).

To be fair, in the meantime, even some of the feminists have stopped using that argument and some feminists have actually taken steps to dismantle it[1]. However, as has always the case with feminism, those voices were just silenced or shunned into conformity and the pay gap myth keeps rearing its ugly head more often than a rational human being can bear. This argument is particularly thrown around in the European Union, especially when preaching to populations that, until recently, had been exempted from feminist propaganda by the Iron Curtain, and those populations also have a more limited understanding on how a market economy works thanks to the undoubted impact of 50 years of Communism.

In this article, we’ll try to dismantle the GPG myth by using the same evidence and studies as those feminists who claim that the GPG is real, and we will confirm, one more time, that many ideologues (including feminist ideologues) are not reading the documents they present as evidence for their position.

1. The argument and the basic principles

The GPG argument, in its full version, sounds like this:

Women are paid X% less for the same work because of systemic gender discrimination.

“X” is a variable that can be assigned a value between 10 and 30, depending on the agenda of the ideologue that is throwing the GPG “argument” around, and it also depends on the degree of indoctrination that that particular ideologue has been subjected to. X also varies on the degree of knowledge that the ideologue has regarding the way in which a market economy works.

“X% less” is a claim without context (not necessarily a false claim) and it also ignores the quite many cases in which “less” becomes factually false since there are quite a lot of instances when women earn significantly more in the same field. We placed the rest of the argument in italic because of the following reasons:

1. Because it’s false.

2. Because “the same work” does not mean “the same experience, the same background, the same education and the same individual abilities” and all the other relevant factors that need to be taken into account when one wants to study the validity of such claim.

3. Because it implies the acceptance of a rather conspiratorial way of thinking which can only make sense in feminist circles. However, these kinds of assertions need to be proven in the real world and proof regarding the supposed “patriarchal oppressive gender structure” has failed to appear and one can safely wager that it will never appear because it’s a made up concept.

One basic principle that we take into account during this article is that people are different from one another. Not only men and women are different – but all people are different from one another. It is a fundamental principle of logic – the fact that the individual A cannot be completely equal with the individual B, unless B is just another notation for the same individual A.

Given that we’re talking about different people, trying to grant equal chances amongst all of them is a cute ideal, albeit impossible to accomplish in the real life for the simple reason that people are born with different capacities. But, trying to enforce identical (or equal) results between them is not only a Marxist ideal but also a highly utopian ideal that cannot be accomplished even partially, no matter how much pressure one might apply.

Another basic principle that we will use is the different economic productivity associated to different works. No matter how much some individuals would love for us to live in world every individual earns exactly X dollars and everyone is equal – this not only will never happen, but even if one were to force it through coercion, it will still collapse back to market economic and thus in different economic productivity associated to different works.

Why is that? Because if one million individuals earn exactly X dollars per month for one year – at the end of the year, some of those individuals will have savings of X-N dollars and some of them will have debts of X² dollars. Perpetuating this system for 10 years, for instance, will lead to individuals that will have X²° dollars in savings and open a business, whilst others will reach a level of 10X² in debts. Why will this happen? Because people are different and they invest differently.

Back to the real world, this aspect is being translated through the fact that some areas of work are more economically relevant, whilst others are less relevant and, consequently, some people will earn more and others less. And this will happen no matter some might feel regarding the issue.

That being said, we will analyze the situation starting with Romania, continuing with the entire EU and then proceed towards the US and Asia in looking for the GPG and explain why the GPG argument is false. After that, we will refute some more side-claims about the issue and then recap.

2. The situation in Romania

The feminists laughed with an eye and cried with the other when they claimed that the GPG in Romania is 12.1% which is still “good” since the EU average is 17%. The feminists were unable to explain the difference because it did not fit the narrative that Romania is a patriarchal oppressive nation instead of being the fluffy heaven that Sweden allegedly is.

But the explanation is simple: The labor market in Romania is much less regulated and, although taxed to a high degree, it’s still less taxed than most EU nations. The workers in Romania support an average of 42% tax burden, whilst in Sweden, for instance, they support a 62% tax burden when adding all the direct and indirect taxes that working individuals pay.

Moreover, the feminists tried to emphasize that in the “information and communication” sector, the differences in wages between men and women go as high as 16%. Where did they get these numbers? From a communicate of the National Institute of Statistics. The report they cite compares the average salary earnings for October 2011 for the people that worked full time for at least 21 days in that month.

And we go to the 7th page of the communicate[2] in the second table and we see that the report in wages between women and men is 86% in the “information and communication” sector – so the GPG is 14%, not 16 as the feminist propaganda machine claimed. We also see that in the entertainment industry the GPG is 9% and in the healthcare industry the GPG is 12.5%. Well, then the feminists are right, right? Wait a minute…

On the same page, we see that the report between women and men in the “administrative services and support service” is 127.3%. In other words, for every dollar a woman makes, a man earns 72.7 cents. On the same page we see that in the “transportation and storage” industry the report is 111.1% and also on the same page we see that in the construction field the report is 124.3%(!!). Something’s rotten in the (former) Kingdom of Romania and the Romanian feminist narrative.

Should men in constructions, support service, transportation or other fields in which the report is over 100% march on the streets? If you think “yes” then you probably have issues regarding understating an economy.

The feminist idea of “gender pay gap” has now become what can best be described as a trope since it implies that it’s always women (and always women as whole – because heaven forbid consider individuals and personal choice!) who get the short end of the stick – which we already noticed that it is a false consideration.

If we look closely, we will notice that the top of discrepancies are closed to one another and within the margin of error. The highest discrepancy favoring men is 28.8% and the highest discrepancy favoring women is 27.3%. What does that tells us? It tells us exactly what we mentioned in the introduction: That people are different form one another and there will always be individuals and groups of individuals who are better professionals in one field and worse professionals, as a whole, in another domain.

So, according to this report, women are great at support services, outperforming by over a quarter their male counterparts and men are great at financial services, outperforming by over a quarter their female counterparts. So? What’s wrong with that?

The main problem with the GPG argument is that it never takes into account any other aspect than strictly the wage – which is completely unrealistic. Therefore, when we have sensationalist numbers like “women earn X% less than men in the domain Y” – we get a simplistic calculus that doesn’t take the real economic dynamics into account. What they basically do is add all the wages that women get and do the same thing with men’s wages and compare them. After comparing them, they conclude that “we have systemic gender discrimination” and then they shut down the discussion.
But it’s not that simple because macroeconomics is a little bit more complex than that. As we see in Romania (and we will see that this is the case in other countries), there are domains in which women are significantly better and domains in which women are significantly worse – and the same is true for men.

In front of this undeniable reality, the gender ideologues come with a side-argument, arguing that women have “two jobs” because they take care of the house, which cannot be said about men.
One might have gotten away with this argument in 1930s Romania, but after 50 years of communism that literally forced women to go to work – whether they wanted or not – this argument is no longer realistic.

This argument is flawed for two reasons: First of all, it implies that men live with women in the same house almost all the time – which is simply not true. On the contrary, the number of men who refuse to live with women is on the rise and Romania, just like Germany, is facing an ever increasing number of men who simply refuse to play the game or they play it only after severely altering it.

Secondly, this argument presumes that someone is forcing women collectively to do domestic labor. Which is again false. If that were to be true, the number of criminal trials on grounds of forced labor would skyrocket – and not only in Romania, but everywhere, since this argument with “domestic labor” is used everywhere.
Besides, the Romanian market offers entrepreneurship for the “domestic drudgery”. Sure, one needs to think about it – but some women already thought of it and now make a lot of money from ironing men’s shirts[3]. But beyond the example provided by Oana from Bucharest, it is of high importance to always consider what and how much individuals choose to invest in their human capital and also the individuals’ ways of seeing things.
Another reason why the GPG will be reported as being bigger and bigger in Europe is because Eurostat changed its calculation method. This is also the reason why the differences between the numbers reported by the National Institute of Statistics (which gets its data straight from the Labor Ministry) and the Eurostat numbers are different.

For instance, Eurostat claims that the GPG in Romania is 15%[4], even though we already proved that’s wrong.

The Eurostat link was provided to us by a feminist academic who tried to argue that the GPG is bigger than 12% and that Romania is a country that “economically oppresses women” – and this was her response to our main argument that GPG is not an adequate number since it doesn’t take the whole dynamic into consideration and that GPG is also not exclusively a thing describing females.

Also, the discrepancies between national numbers and Eurostat’s numbers is explained by Eurostat themselves[5]:

According to the new methodology, the indicator concerning the unadjusted gender pay gap covers all employees (there are no restrictions for age and hours worked) of enterprises (with at least ten employees) within industry, construction and services

So, in other words, the Eurostat is comparing the miner that stays 10 hours per day underground with the hotel receptionist.
You don’t have to be an economist to realize that such comparison has absolutely no relevance and that it is more than natural that the miner or the rolling mill operator to earn more than the hotel receptionist or the waiter.

We’ll come back to the dubious ways of calculating the GPG and looking at the economy through ideological lenses.

3. The situation in the European Union

Just like in the case of Romania, we will use links that we received from feminists who send us those links to prove that the GPG is about women and oppression. We will also use data from Eurostat (and especially their explanation).

We stated earlier that women are wonderful in support services (according to the data available) and also the fact that the GPG favors women in the construction field (which definitely is a hit to the narrative that men conspire collectively to oppress women – since construction is a 90% male profession).

Well, according to Eurostat, the female-favoring GPG in constructions is happening in many other nations – so it’s not an anomaly of the patriarchal Romanian economy.

Eurostat reports read[6]:

While not less than ten Member States registered negative pay gaps in the construction industry, the highest gap (19 %) was observed in the United Kingdom. A negative gender pay gap means that on average women’s gross hourly earnings are higher than those or men in that particular sector.

In 2011, the GPG was negative in 8 Member States: Bulgaria, Italy, Luxembourg, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Slovenia.

These numbers prove once again that judging by superficial and ideologically-driven perceptions is rarely leading to a correct judgment.

The feminists were “appalled” that the GPG in education was +9% even though it’s a “feminized field” (these were exactly their words). By that rational, men should be “appalled” that the GPG in construction is -24% in Romania because it is a “masculinized” domain.

But things don’t work that way. Whilst being a construction worker is definitely a tough job that it’s mainly practiced by men, the construction sector doesn’t include only trowel, hammer drills, mortar and concrete mixers – but it also includes architects, yard chiefs, interior design experts, etc. The latter are usually better paid. And it is normal to be that way. And, more important, the latter category does not necessarily have to be able to carry bags of cement – which means that those jobs are definitely more welcoming to women who are less physically capable. And, according to official data, women are coming to the field – in such great numbers that they are visible in macroeconomic statistics in 10 nations of Europe.

So what? What’s wrong with that? Well, there’s certainly nothing wrong with that – but as long as we’re being told only half of the story, we are being pointed only towards half of the numbers and we get a lot of misleading propaganda about half of the economic dynamics while giving us the impression that that half is the whole story, myths like the GPG argument will never die. And, unfortunately, very few are willing to actually look at the numbers and use common sense.

An interesting aspect for feminists and statists in general to consider is that the less a market is regulated, the more equal and fair it tends to be. Case in point: Romania is the freest country in the EU regarding telecommunication. This aspect allows Romania to lead the charts in Europe[7] when it comes to internet speeds, internet coverage, lowest prices and any other technical indicator and be the third worldwide in these respects (lagging only behind South Korea and Hong Kong). Another aspect is that Romania is the only country that has a negative GPG in the telecommunication industry[8].

Also, one can notice in the same table[8] that deregulation from a field correlates with a smaller GPG. Case in point: Finland, which has one of the freest energy markets in the EU has a significantly smaller GPG than Romania and Estonia, which are the most regulated energy markets in the European Union. We will explain some of the reasons why this correlation exists.
The same Eurostat reported mentioned earlier says that the GPG is insignificant when it comes to employees aged 30 and below.
Another factor that skews the GPG numbers is tendency of women to massively seek employment in the public sector and running away from the real economy – which is the private sector. This isn’t a bad thing in itself – but the bureaucrats themselves are often guilty of suppressing the European economy and the deindustrialization process that’s taking place these days thanks to the aberrant “green” regulations imposed by Brussels.

International Labor Organization (ILO) – which is a think tank paid by a highly feminist-oriented and misandric in action institution – the UN – admits, though only with half of the mouth, that the private sector’s accomplishments are corrosive to the GPG propaganda and that only the do-nothing and make-work “jobs” in the public sector are coming with very low GPG. In the real world economy (in which performance is being rewarded) GPG usually has two digits, both negative and positive as we already showed earlier. The ILO report reads[9]:

Across Europe, women are better represented in the public sector than in the private sector, due to the provision of higher salaries, as well as to the existence of a higher proportion of skilled jobs which require a better educated workforce.
In the UK, 28 per cent of women in the public sector are considered “better educated,” compared with just 18 per cent in the private sector. In Lithuania, the number of better educated women working in public sector jobs is double that working in the private sector.[…]

Even for low-skilled jobs, public service wages generally have been higher than in the private sector and have played a role in reducing gender pay discrimination, particularly in countries with low or no floors for wages in the private sector.
The progressive replacement of this wage premium for those working in the public sector by a wage penalty, as witnessed in a number of European countries like Hungary, Romania, the Netherlands, affect women in the public sector.

There is one problem with this line of reasoning: It is unnatural for the wages in the public sector to be higher than the private sector. Why? Because the public sector exists thanks to the private sector – not the other way around. As for the “superior education” argument brought forth by ILO – the explanation is quite simple: The diploma factors. Every EU nation has at least one university whose sole purpose is to print diplomas as they don’t teach anyone anything. And since in the public sector the wages increase depending on the amount of diplomas and qualifications certificate you can produce – and not depending on your actual performance on the job – it makes perfect sense for the public employees (both women and men) to seek to buy themselves a new diploma.

But ILO says nothing about the countries which have smaller public sectors (like Poland, for instance) and about the fact that the GPG is virtually non-existent (meaning that it is within the margin of error of +/- 2%) in most fields of the private sector. Sure, there are domains in which the GPG is +20% and domains in which it’s -20%. And it’s normal to be that way (see the second principle in the introduction).

Moreover, ILO’s argument regarding the drops in wages in the public sector in Romania and Hungary that would allegedly increase the GPG is not supported by factual reality. Any number you take – be it from the National Institutes or Eurostat – one can clearly see that this is not the case at all. But again, ILO is funded by the UN and the UN has always been eager to make women appear to be victims even when it’s blatantly obvious that this is not the case.

But the problem with the ILO report is not only that it is a propaganda piece – but also the fact that it includes lies and distorted views regarding reality. Like this:

Diane Elson, an Emeritus Professor at the Department of Sociology of the University of Essex, agrees that further cuts would harm gender equality, but believes that many European countries could soon abandon austerity policies.

No, Mrs. Elson. Most European nation will not drop these policies until the EU, or at least the euro currency that’s keeping them in an economic prison, will be dismantled. Any half-decent economist can confirm that the financial situation of the EU is horrible, at least – so it’s just intellectual masturbation to think that nations could just start go in a governmental spending spree without risking complete default. Even the European Commission, lead by the Maoist Jose Manuel Barroso, admits in a report that the GPG is not really a relevant number regarding gender equality and also admits that counting employees in bulks, without considering the number of hours they work, their age, their experience and other dynamics, does not paint a realistic image. Page 5 from the Commission’s report reads[10]:

The gender pay gap is not an indicator of the overall equality between women and men since it only concerns salaried persons. It must be looked at in conjunction with other indicators linked to the labour market such as different working patterns of women. In most of the countries in which the female employment rate is low (e.g. Malta, Italy, Poland), the pay gap is lower than average, which may reflect a small proportion of low-skilled or unskilled women in the workforce. A high pay gap is usually characteristic of a labour market that is highly segregated (e.g. Estonia, Slovakia) or in which a significant proportion of women work part-time (e.g. Germany, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Austria). Institutional mechanisms and systems on wage setting can also influence the pay gap.

This report was given to us by a feminist as a “proof” regarding her statements concerning the GPG. Why don’t people read their documents before throwing them around? Or perhaps they hope nobody actually does the reading?

Normally, the discussion regarding the legitimacy of the GPG argument should end right here, right now. But it is important to thoroughly evaluate the issue so we can demolish it once and for all.

The report from which we quoted above then continues with claims for which it brings absolutely no evidence. For instance, it insists on the “fact” that there are labor markets strictly segregated by sex through coercion in Europe – but it offers no evidence to back the claim.

Moreover, the Commission’s report shoots itself in the foot when it starts quoting the results. For instance, the report writes a lot about the “patriarchal conservative nations” (and brings Slovakia as an example) and then the Commission’s propaganda becomes null when they have to give Italy’s example.

There is little to no doubt that Italy is probably the second most social conservative nation in the EU, after Poland – though some might argue that Romania and Slovenia are also in the vicinity in this regard.
Well, in Poland, the average GPG is 2% (so within the margin of error) and in Italy, the GPG is -30%. In other words, an Italian man earns 70 euro-cents for every 1 euro earned by a woman. To illustrate the hypocrisy of the European Commission and how it shoots itself in the foot each time it confronts reality, let’s read some more from the same report from page 4[10]:

In every single EU-country women earn less than men.

Then, we roll towards page 7 and see that the report offers us updated numbers according to the International Standard Classification of Occupations. And we read in the page 7 from the same report:

Italy is the only country where men get paid significantly less (30%) than women

So, just 3 pages later, the EU faces reality and the whole Gender Pay Gap Oppression narrative falls like a house of cards which feminism really is. And again: this link was given to us by a feminist who wanted to convince us that the feminist interpretation of the GPG is a real thing.

Also, this report also confirms, though indirectly, the correlation between small GPG and minimal regulations. On the page 11 we notice that the EU countries with the smallest GPG on the corporate sectors are, in this order, Romania, Cyprus and Bulgaria. In the same time, Sweden and the UK – countries that are suffocated with affirmative actions and feminist culture – are moving further and further in terms of GPG.

Also, in the pages 12 and 13 of the report, one can notice that the -30% GPG in Italy is consistent in almost all domains – thus demolishing for good the statements and premises expressed by the European Commission’s report in the first pages.

4. North America and Asia

Many times it has been claimed that whenever a “male superiority on top” is pointed out, there is also a “male superiority” on the bottom. In other words, we usually have mostly men at the bottom, mostly men on top and women somewhere in the middle. This statement is not always true – but it applies perfectly when it comes to GPG and labor force occupation rate in the USA.

From the Federal Reserve Bank’s report The Unemployment Gender Gap During the Current Recession we get to find out that men have been (and they still are) the main demographic affected by unemployment – and the recession contributed negatively to further this trend, thus widening the gap. These conclusions are more than important to counteract the feminist propaganda machine that never stops claiming the nonsense that financial crisis is affecting women more. It doesn’t. Page 2 from the report reads[11]:

A breakdown of the employment figures shows that men have been affected more adversely than women during the present economic downturn. Male and female unemployment rates were around the same levels in December 2007, 5.0% and 4.8% respectively. Since then these two unemployment rates have diverged significantly. In August 2009, the male unemployment rate stood at 10.9% while that of females was 8.2%. This 2.7 percentage point difference is the largest unemployment gender gap in the postwar era.

And, whilst men were losing jobs in millions and a quarter more than women, the American culture was talking about giving free contraceptives to… women. The report goes on and in the page 3 reads[11]:

A closer look at the gross labor flows by gender reveals that men had a significantly higher unemployment inflow rate than women, causing the unemployment gender gap to widen.

But despite these undeniable facts, the propaganda continues that the GPG is about “systemic oppression” and not about more complex factors and about the dynamics of a market economy. And, also, the feminist propaganda machine never ever sees, or at least it turns a blind eye, when pointed to the fact that the GPG goes both ways in most cases. And precisely because it goes both ways, the “systemic gender discrimination” argument is utter rubbish. If male privilege and patriarchy would indeed be real, then why are always more men who are unemployed than women? Also, if patriarchy exists to benefit men, why are men losing jobs in millions (at significantly higher rates than women) in every single recession?

But beyond the raw numbers who leave no room for feminist interpretations, even some reports written by feminist lobbyists are forced to admit that the GPG, if it is to be considered a relevant number at all, is not a good argument to support the thesis of systemic discrimination.

We will now read from the OECD report – The Price of Prejudice: Labour Market Discrimination on the Grounds of Gender and Ethnicity. Starting with the page 8, the report slowly deconstructs the arguments that the same ideologues were using 10 years ago and that even they have come to the realization that those arguments lack substance. Page 9 reads[12]:

Several researchers have suggested that gender differences in individual characteristics that are usually not available in standard datasets can account for the large unexplained portion of the gender wage gap[…]. These include factors affecting gender differences in the quality of the labour supply such as the quality of education and field of study, as well as personal traits including expectations and motivation. For example, using recent UK data on a cohort of graduates, Chevalier (2007) shows that differences in motivations, expectations and field of study can explain up to 70% of the observed wage gap.

In other words, even the French organization of statist orientation admits that when it comes to the behavior on the labor market, there is no such thing as “men as a class” and “women as a class” as feminists are trying to convince us. On the contrary – the statistical differences cannot be largely explained when it comes to big groups or classes, but strictly at an individual level.

This article was also brought to us by a feminist as “evidence” that the GPG is about discrimination.

On the same page, the report admits that the differences are rather random and they cannot be correlated neither with the local culture, nor with other social factors except for small measures – such small measures that they would practically explain nothing even if they can be correlated.

In Asia, the average GPG has been static for over 10 years at around 18%, according to the International Trade Union Confederation’s report called Frozen in time – Gender pay gap unchanged for 10 years[13].

Before reading the article, let’s look one more time at the 18% figure and let’s compare it with the progressive feminist heavens like the UK, Sweden or France. In this regard, one could say without mistaking that the Asian nations are much more egalitarian with men and women when it comes to wages than Sweden. I guess that’s a bad news for ROKS (The leading force of feminism in Sweden). Saudi Arabia or Iran pays women closer to a parity with men than Sweden does. Ooops!

Just like in the EU, in most countries, we can notice that there are domains in which men are significantly better paid than women and vice-versa. We look at the page 23 of the ITUC report and we see that Indonesia (Muslim patriarchal, boo-hoo), the GPG on fishing is -19.8%. In absolute numbers, women earn on average 4660 rupies per hour whilst men earn 3890 rupies per hour. Sure – they both do the same work – they fish. But, although it’s the same work – they don’t have the same results – hence the GPG. Apparently, women are luckier in catching fish (or better at selling it). It’s nothing wrong with that – but we never hear that on TV. We only hear how women are oppressed throughout Asia.

Also in Indonesia, we see that the construction sector is similar with the one from Romania or Luxembourg, with a GPG of -29%. Another interesting aspect is that if in Europe men are significantly more performing in real estate – in Indonesia, it’s women that are better on this. The GPG on real estate and business is -18.6%.

These numbers are only confirming that not only men and women are different, but people in general are different. This is the reality that those who use the GPG as an argument for “systemic discrimination against women” are refusing to grasp.
The raw numbers are clear, though: Men in Romania are better at business than the men in Indonesia and women in Romania are worse at mining then women in Philippine (see table 14, page 24 in the ITUC report – the GPG on mining in Philippine is -24%).
Moreover, in Philippine, the GPG in construction is -46%(!!!). These numbers speak for themselves about the fact that it is an intellectual masturbation to come with the GPG as an argument for anything.

Also in Philippine, women in telecom are earning 153% of what men earn. And in almost all domains where data is available, the numbers are similar in Philippine. But yet we don’t hear news or see headlines like: “Philippine is a matriarchy” – yet somehow this “logic” becomes legitimate if the report of wages between men and women is smaller than 100%.

In the real world, Philippine is not a matriarchy, even though it has a negative GPG in many fields and Indonesia is not a patriarchy because it has a positive GPG overall and comparable with Romania’s GPG. Why? Because the GPG is not an indicator for anything.

We recommend the readers to consult the ITUC report on Asia even in more detail. You will find a lot of interesting things that we don’t hear in the news – or we hear them only in half stories, with relevant parts and context taken out of the picture and usually depending on the political agenda of that particular mainstream venue.

So, in conclusion, the GPG is an irrelevant number when talking about the existence or inexistence of “systemic gender discrimination.” At best, the GPG figures are good at understanding general trends between men and women from different areas of the world. But that’s pretty much where the utility of these figure ends.

If you truly believe there is a patriarchy and a systemic gender discrimination system – you will have to find other arguments and other data to try to prove its existence because the Gender Pay Gap argument cannot possibly explain the hypothesis. In fact, the fact that the GPG goes both ways, pretty much demolishes the entire premises on which the GPG argument is being built.

This is a shorter version of an extensive study regarding gender pay gap and women and men’s behavior on the labor market that I wrote for the Romanian media one year ago. The original version, in Romanian, is available on my blog.



[2] – National Institute of Statistics communicate (in Romanian)








[12] – Price of Prejudice – OECD report

[13] – ITUC – Frozen in time – report regarding GPG in Asia

Recommended Content