Dynamics of the Wage Gap

...

Education Analysis

[pic 3][pic 4]

Males

Minimum

1st Quartile

Median

Mean

3rd Quartile

Maximum

Skewness

8.00

12.00

14.00

13.14

14.00

18.00

-0.077414

Females

Minimum

1st Quartile

Median

Mean

3rd Quartile

Maximum

Skewness

8.00

12.00

14.00

13.47

14.00

18.00

-0.0327185

The education distribution provides an excellent illustration as to how much education males and females are undertaking. On average, male and females are putting themselves through 13.14 and 13.47 years of education respectively. Based on the data, it is clear that on average, most men and women have the same level of education. However, there continues to be a wage gap for people who are performing the same job and posses the same educational qualifications. However, the problem with education is the skewness of the data. The skewness statistic is negative for both genders but the male value is slightly lower (-0.077414 and -0.0327185). This statistic indicates that years of education are skewed to the left and that the overall average for education is lower than it should be. The statistic also shows that men feel education is less important for their careers compared to women as shown by the fact that the men skewness stat is much more skewed to the left. This may also indicate that a larger number of men are settling for low wage jobs (see Figure 1 and Figure 2).

Linear Regression: Wage vs. Age

[pic 5]

In our linear regression chart we are comparing the male/female population mean and median regressions. The dark red line is an estimate of the data points for males and the dark green line is an estimate of the data points for females; the dark blue line is the linear regression for males while the pink line is the linear regression for females. This linear regression indicates that male wages are growing at a slightly higher rate than female wages with increase in age. Furthermore, the graph also illustrates that there continues to be a significantly large wage gap between males and females unaddressed by public policy. It is apparent that there is a wage gap, and that steps need to be taken in order to reduce this gap in the future.

Conclusion

From the analysis provided in this paper, it can be concluded that there is indeed wage gap inequality between male and female wages. After studying the effects of liberalization and considering variables that tend to affect the wage rate (age and education). It can be noted that males with the same education and age earn a higher hourly earnings on average than women with those same characteristics. Let it also be noted that women tend to be more educated on average and still have a small mean wage rate.

By analysis of the results, one may suggest that the only solution to this issue is to provide more transparency amongst wages and additional government subsidies towards women who receive an unequal wage relative to their male counterparts. Doing so will provide businesses with more accountability and reason to act on this issue of social responsibility and equality ethics.

Peer Review Changes/Feedback

This section of the paper will discuss the remarks presented by a peer evaluator that has reviewed our paper, “Dynamics of the Wage Gap.” Though the Peer's feedback seems to be insightful, in reality the quality of the review is rather low and inaccurate. We the authors disagree with virtually every point the editor has claimed to make. The points of review are the following:

- Introductions lack of relevance to our topic

- No concrete examples in our literary survey

- Incomplete data (regression could have been more detailed)

- Overall poor syntax and diction

It is ludicrous to assume that any of these arguments hold true when “properly” assessing our paper. Many of the examples that our editor has included contain incomplete examples and inconsistent remarks that lead us (the authors) to believe that our editor did not even read our paper to the full extent. Evidence of this issue can also be illustrated by considering the difference between Justin's mark and our Peer editor's mark. The grade difference is separated by 19 percentage points 71% (Peer) -90% (Justin).

Moreover, we have made small changes to the syntax of our literature including: grammar errors and a few unclear sentences. We strongly believe that our papers contents and data are of the highest quality and deserve a grade different than the one provided to us by our Peer evaluator.

References

1) Pay Equity Commission. (2015). A Guide to Interpreting Ontario’s Pay Equity Act. Ontario. Government of Ontario. Retrieved from: http://www.payequity.gov.on.ca/en/resources/guide/ope/index.php

2) Arat-Koc, & Sedef. (2012, April/May). Invisibilized, Individualized, and Culturalized: Paradoxical Invisibility and Hyper-Visibility of Gender in Policy Making and Policy Discourse in Neoliberal Canada. Retrieved February 28, 2016, from http://sfx.scholarsportal.info.subzero.lib.uoguelph.ca/guelph/docview/1196999598?accountid=11233

3) Benjamin,