#genderpaygap

Tennis code violations – who is worse?

33AEE29A-5740-4EC5-A3BE-1B12B835C9A5.jpeg

Some argue that the 2018 US Open was biased against female players. In the singles men played 3,176 games in the recent tournament. Or 1.538x more than the 2,065 games played by the women. Yet the stats show men suffered 86 code violations vs 22 for the women or 3.91x. So on balance men 2.54x more likely to suffer a code violation than women on a per game basis. Is it the blokes are just more ill-tempered? If we use the 1.538x ratio of more games played, the boys get penalized (over the last 20 years of grand slam violations);

4.2x more for racket abuse

1.6x more for audible obscenity

2.8x more for unsportsmanlike conduct

2.5x more for verbal abuse

1.2x more for visible obscenity

1.5x more for time wasting

The girls get penalized more than boys in the follwing ways.

60% more for coaching

10% more for ball abuse

Although trying to compare ‘bias’ in tennis with respect to code violations is kind of irrelevant. Certain players ‘blow up’ more than others. McEnroe got many more warnings than Bjorn Borg.

Just for the record, at the US Open Djokovic had to play 136 games for his $3.8mn vs Osaka’s 86. So for each game Osaka earned $44,186 vs Djokovic’s $27,941. Maybe this is why he made his comments about men deserving to be paid more? If we look at the runner ups, del Potro won $17,961 per game vs Serena Williams’ $26,428. So Serena’s. 2nd place earned her almost as much as Djokovic win.

Naturally a better judge is not games played but viewership. The Serena Williams/Naomi Osaka final drew 3.1mn viewers on ESPN, more than the 2.07mn that watch Djokovic/del Potro the next day. If women get 1.5x the audience of the men in the final could one argue the men need to play 1.5x longer to earn the same? Arguably Serena was fighting to match Margaret Court’s record which was part of the boost.

To be honest women’s tennis can be more entertaining to watch in so far as frequent sustained rallies. Men’s tennis can often be a blast fest of aces and blistering returns of serve.

It is likely that Osaka will attract higher than average audiences going forward. Perhaps she is entitled to claim higher prize money than the men based on the extra attention she brings to the sport?

If we look at golf, Tiger Woods used to be paid $300,000 just for attending a tournament regardless of how poorly he finished. If Naomi Osaka helps click the turnstiles surely she deserves a cut of the gate?

Diversity in the ADF – lower targets missed by even wider margin

D61DCB9C-6778-4D4B-BCBE-83002FA4E1EC.jpeg

What sort of defence force can Australia rely on if our military brass blathers on about the importance of “diversity”? The irony is that the Australian Defence Force (ADF) reduced the actual female recruitment target and missed it by an even wider margin. Instead of respecting the pure vocational choices of men and women somehow the military seems to think ever higher levels of discrimination will overcome it. Military morale is not high.

Navy News reports that,

100 Days of Change, running from July 1-October 8, aims to strengthen the momentum for individuals to improve our operational effectiveness by committing to gender equality and equity at all levels.

There is only one thing a military needs to do – be capability effective. It should focus on candidates who fit that requirement. Nothing else matters. Yet RADM Mark Hammond said,  “We must do this as one Navy, regardless of age, rank, race, religion, sexual orientation, ability or gender,” Indeed he should but such outcomes do not come through blatant discriminatory practices.

Shouldn’t a military focus on capabilities of the individual – whether he/she meets the “same” minimum fitness requirements (women have easier standards to pass), can hit enemy targets or whatever objective is set out. If 100 women are better than 100 men for the specific role then the military should hire 100 women and vice versa. Imagine if 100 men proved to be more capable than 100 women for a particular skill? In order to to hit targets, 25 men would be shunned to make way for inferior skills. If 100 women were better in this hypothetical situation, imagine the outrage if only 25 were selected for the 100 positions to keep the diversity target? It wouldn’t and shouldn’t happen.

Is discrimination, where recruiters face demotion if they don’t hit gender based targets, the way we want to run a military? Let’s take a look.

In the 2015-16 Women in the ADF report we see the Navy wishes to have 25% women by 2023  it stands at 21.3% today, up from 19% in 2016.

935713BD-645B-4A29-A199-C16CC4CC7822.jpeg

If we were to look at actual vs target, it seems that the path is diverging. Isn’t that indication that women are less interested in the military as a career choice? Yet the Navy is forced to discriminate against males in order to hit targets.

So has the Army  it wants 15% by 2023 and is tracking marginally ahead with the ultimate aim of 25%. Could it be that 15% is the “natural” rate of women wanting to join the armed forces?

D3E8E0E5-1004-4F34-BFAB-AC80B4A36E6A.jpeg

The Air Force is also aiming for 25% by 2023 but is tracking below target.

52794261-2AE5-489E-BE1B-C5AC9F68A43E.jpeg

We should reflect on a study conducted around the world covering over 100,000 subjects which revealed that the countries with the biggest push/policy provision for equality and diversity cause the opposite to occur when choices are exercised. Scandinavia is the perfect example. Men and women don’t sort themselves into the same categories if we leave them alone to do it of their own accord through policies that tend to maximize equality. In Scandinavia it is  20 to one female nurses to male and approximately the same male engineers to female engineers,

Yet look at the lengths the Royal Australian Air Force goes to in order to hit diversity through blatant discriminatory practices.

“In support of this growth path Air Force has implemented, or is in the process of implementing, a number of recruitment and retention initiatives such as:

  • specific female recruiting target
  • Women in the Air Force marketing campaign
  • continuation of embedded specialist women recruitment team in Defence Force Recruiting
  • the trial of a reduction of Initial Minimum Period of Service (IMPS)
  • introduction of the Graduate Pilot Scheme (GPS) for women
  • changes to direct entry female pilot return of service obligations
  • continuation of experiential camps for girls (technical and aircrew focussed programmes)
  • release of an Air Force produced recruitment guide, ‘PropElle’, to support female pilot candidates through the recruitment process.

No such programs are available for men.

Despite all these programmes, surely any squadron leader with any common sense wants the most effective fighting force. Once the canopy closes, they depend on each other.

What an insult to women to think they need all these artificial prop ups to get ahead. Every ambitious women CM has ever met has never relied on free kicks but sheer determination, grit and above all ability.

53450D05-9E3C-4C77-B72C-9231FAA284E7

It is clear in the table above that all three military branches missed female recruitment targets in 2015/16. The irony is even after lowering the numerical targets of female hires in each military branch over 2014/15, recruiters missed by an even bigger margin. Evidence that on balance women are less likely to join the military when driven by personal choice!

The ADF paper also notes that women quit at higher rates than men, especially at the trainee stage. Men are also much more likely to remain in the military than women after 18mths of parental or maternity leave.

CB5A7FDE-B49A-4DE7-A6DB-854AB4228C42.jpeg

In terms of gender pay gap there are marginal differences. In the senior ranks – Commodore (Navy), Brigadier (Army) and Air Marshall (Air Force) – women are paid more than men on average. Although the ADF “determines work value and subsequent remuneration proposals based primarily on capability delivery. Where there is a direct or similar civilian (non-military) occupation, market relativities may contribute to remuneration determinations. One example of this is in Defence’s technical trades, where there are measurable market influences and relativity for trades such as vehicle mechanics.

In terms of effectiveness of these diversity programmes,  the data is also telling  a little more than half of women think it makes  difference. 45% of men also agree. Hardly overwhelming evidence.

BE9BBB6A-F48A-4283-BC08-067BE1397457.jpeg

When addressing morale, only 40% of men and women feel positive. Confidence in senior leadership was around 63%. Not exactly the figures that make a war fighter. 22% of women are actively planning to leave the military and 25% of men. If the military keeps it up perhaps male  resignations will help boost the percentages of female recruits that don’t seem keen to join.

2BEAE1C5-8B50-453A-85AC-83060F4D0952

The military is the last place that social experimentation should be conducted. Let’s be clear that China, Australia’s most realistic threat in the Asia-Pacific, doesn’t practice diversity in the PLA. It projects capability.

Should our frigates be sunk, our fighters shot down or our artillery troops shelled to smithereens, at least we can say they didn’t die in vain but won the war of diversity. Await the rainbow camouflage to broaden our “wokeness”

The gender unemployment gap

Changes in the Gender Unemployment Gap during Recessions

Another interesting piece was written by the St Louis Fed showing the gender unemployment gap of men relative to women. A negative spread shows that women have lower risk of unemployment relative to men in the 24 months after the start of a recession. Looking at the chart we see that in 1960 & 1969 female unemployment tended to rise relative to men after a recession began but in the following downturns of 1973, 1980, 1990, 2001 and 2007 the situation reversed. Participation rates for women in the workforce hovered at around 40% in 1970 vs 60% today. In 2007, the most aggressive spread emerged in favour of women by over 2%. The Fed report does not include what types of roles that women tend to do. Switching to the Bureau of Labor statistics (BLS) it makes sense that women over time have been retrenched at lower rates than males due to field of employment.

Women today tend to occupy more jobs in education, nursing, healthcare (defensive industries) whereas men tend to work in more construction, agriculture and manufacturing specialties (levered industries).

In 2017, employment breakdown between men and women was as follows.

employment of men by industry BLS的圖片搜尋結果

Another interesting table from the BLS was that of educational standards of 1970 compared to 2010. As we can see more women are pursuing higher levels of education. 67% in 2010 took some college or higher degree vs only 22% in 1970. One would imagine in 2018 those numbers are higher again.

Where men once went to college in proportions far higher than women—58% to 42% as recently as the 1970s—the ratio has now almost exactly reversed with women comprising more than 56% of students on campuses nationwide, according to the U.S. Department of Education (DoE). Some 2.2 million fewer men than women will be enrolled in college this year. By 2026, 57% of college students in the US will be women.

It will be interesting to see how the gender unemployment gap develops during future recessions with a far higher level of educated women in the workforce.

Salma Hayek’s curves are an unfair advantage in a world striving for equality

AD890919-E50C-4DE9-B314-01CB8D791635.jpeg

She has a point, but not why you think. It’s a bit confusing though. Did Salma talk to Benedict? Do the Hollywood set want women to get pay rises or men to get pay cuts? Will the sisterhood be annoyed that she’s undone Cumberbatch’s gesture to bump them higher? Or should actors be paid a flat unionized rate by the hour, including a one hour lunch break? Equal pay for equal work, right?

The laughable aspect is that Hollywood actors/actresses know full well that track record at the box office acts as a swing factor for pay determination. Kate Winslet was little known before Titanic but immediately after the phone didn’t stop ringing for her to star in new roles. The pay most certainly jumped significantly as she was well within her rights to command top dollar.

Let’s not forget that the movie star agents (mostly male) get paid on commission so it is absolutely in their best interests to get the best deals for female and male stars. In an industry dominated by sycophants it is highly doubtful they’re low balling to spite those striving for gender equality. Or should directors just cast women and save on production costs?

Yet it points back to the real world. Did you bust a gut to finish top of your 1st class honours degree in law to settle for the same pay as someone who didn’t? Surely you did so to get an advantage in life. Do Olympians train for 4 years in the hope of finishing outside the medals? Or should we dispense with medals entirely? Imagine how many records won’t get broken because there is no incentive to see the fastest, strongest or fittest. More and more schools have this “everyone’s a winner at St Barnabus’” mentality on sports days because the fat kid needs reassurance that he is just as worthy of winning a 100m dash as the 50lb stick insect is in the shot put. Differences are a part of life and we should embrace them rather than push to guarantee everyone gets the same outcome regardless of individual effort.

Isn’t the point of buying a nicer house in a nicer suburb all about an individual desire to achieve? Or will you be happy for the state to allot you a Soviet style 2 bedroom apartment in a crappy neighborhood?

No, let’s just listen to champagne socialists go out of their way conducting self promotion activities. Although in hindsight Salma Hayek may have a point on cutting back on male actor salaries as the total revenue performance of the US box office has dwindled back to 1993 levels.  Just like music has gone the way of Spotify, making a date in the diary to see a movie doesn’t cut it anymore. Video on demand is increasingly what matters.

But Salma, please, please, please! If you get roles that pay you more than your male costars based on your talents then all power to you. You won’t hear a peep here. In fact congratulations for being able to maximize the appeal of such genres to audiences that will shell out for them. Maybe you should beat up on the script writers more often for not writing stories that play up to the male dominating sultry voluptuous vixens you play so well! Be careful though, you may get complaints from the less well endowed actresses for having an unfair advantage but surely you’ve never used those differences or your beauty to get ahead in your career?

#SpareMe & #ThankYou

DEC1A621-096A-41D3-910B-5CDC944DDF1C.jpeg

They say pictures speak a thousand words. One wonders whether there are a thousand threads in these pictures at the Cannes Film Festival. For all of the sanctimony we hear from celebrities about how important the #MeToo movement is, what better opportunity to let down the side than to minimize cloth to skin ratios. These ladies know they are walking billboards, overtly flaunting their assets to gain attention in the hope they are short listed on the next blockbuster given the likelihood of widespread media coverage. Why else would they wear the equivalent of postage stamps held together by dental floss? Who can blame them? Where are the male actors strutting in sequin g-strings? Hardly fair that only women get to show off the flesh!

By all means, these ladies who graze on lentils and alfalfa while completing grueling gym sessions 6 hours a day, have every right to dress as they please given they work so hard cultivating those figures. Isn’t objectification the intention? Appreciating beauty is certainly not a crime and it does not border on harassment. Should red-blooded males be shamed for seeing protruding nipples and exposed cleavage fall into their peripheral vision? Can we honestly say hand on heart that some in the Hollywood set didn’t/don’t willingly trade flesh for a $5mn role? It is not to condone the behavior rather to say that if in the end a budding actor/actress is willing to ‘pay in kind’ to nail a big role that is still consensual. Jokes about Weinstein’s sexual antics were made for years at award ceremonies before he was finally outed. If he is convicted of sexual assault/harassment then may the full extent of the law deal with the crime. However #SpareMe the sanctimony about how none of them knew. Staying on the lucrative gravy train and buying more global property was more way addictive than doing the right thing by standing up for the true victims.

It is surprising that the feminists haven’t been up in arms about Cannes. They managed to take down the F-1 grid girls effectively enough. Isn’t it ironic that the people most upset by the ban were the grid girls themselves. They liked what they did, got paid handsomely to flaunt figures they no doubt work so hard to maintain and welcomed the attention. Now they are out of a job! Yet it’s is we who must get in step with the times. Perhaps the F-1 teams could have been asked to pay a grid-girl tax and donate the funds to promote charitable causes that the girls themselves felt passionately about. It will be interesting to see whether the MotoGP franchise owners, Dorna, go the same route as F-1 which will be pretty hypocritical given the web pages dedicated to the brolley dollies at each round.

Maybe the bigger laugh was the Israeli 2018 Eurovision song winner, Netti Barzilai. She said that in the auditioning process that she overheard whispers about whether they could field someone prettier or skinnier. So sex appeal was preferable to ability? When was the last time we truly heard a properly decent song that didn’t have some singer surrounded by scantily clad women twerking?

Still the virtue signaling continues. Cate Blanchett was on the stairs at Cannes demanding equal pay, when she herself is one of the higher paid actresses in town. Her mate Benedict Cumberbatch is refusing to star in movies unless there is equal pay.  Such actions are nothing but self-indulgent attempts to create free publicity. Say he is offered $25mn for a role and his never seen before female sidekick is not granted the same? Will he protest, divide his own pot or star anyway? One wonders.

Here is an idea for celebrities. CM thinks that Hollywood should be run by a government agency which will ensure equality in all outcomes. Movie roles will be distributed evenly. Each movie will have exactly the same budget. It will have equal numbers of men, women, LGBT, races, religious representation and sexual orientation regardless of how factually incorrect a true story may seem. Movie directors will have no say in who is cast for each part. Box office revenues will be evenly distributed at the end of each calendar year to ensure that flops will get subsidized by the hits. The actors who star in blockbusters will receive exactly the same outcome as those whose films end up almost immediately on Netflix.

All actors and actresses will be required to work exactly the same hours, have the same contract terms and be required to attend the awards ceremony in exactly the same garb. No makeup will be permissible, no eyebrow stylists flown around the world at last minute and no speech longer than 10 seconds. As there is to be equality at all costs, there will no longer be gender based awards at the Oscars. Or alternatively Best Actor – male, female and the 63 other gender categories. “The winner of the Best Actor in the hermaphrodite category is….”

So Benedict and Cate, will you join a union which levels the playing field and calls for equality or do you still prefer that your acting skills determine how the free market sets your prices? If you choose the former, just don’t speak to Jack Nicholson. He is still collecting royalties from Batman. Just what I thought.

These are the Oscar stats. A 40% decline over 5 years. Is this a sign of a format that is no longer sustainable? Is the disintermediation/disruption caused by video on demand such that making a ‘date’ to go to the cinema is no longer a priority? Cinema attendance in the domestic US market is back at 1993 levels. In the 1990s Hollywood made 400-500 films annually. It now pumps out more than 700. The average revenue per film continues to head south. The strategy seems to throw more at audiences and hope it sticks. Are the movies the industry rates itself on actually reflected in the box office? Out of touch with the audience? It would seem so. 9 films in the last 13 have failed to breach $75mn. So instead of Hollywood being so preoccupied with espousing politics, perhaps it should look to the audience it ‘preaches’ to and starts ‘reaching’ them instead otherwise many of them will be staring at massive pay cuts. Or will that mean it is every man and woman for themselves again!?

Enough!

B50F9E62-ADA4-4D2E-885B-4FA4DC3ABCED.jpeg

Social Justice actor Benedict Cumberbatch typifies the stupidity within Holywood. Box office takings have been driven by key actors/ actresses for decades. Top drawer female leads like Meryl Streep have seldom taken a back seat to her male costars when it comes to pay. This equal pay for equal work malarkey is insanely obtuse. Assuming an extra works 1/10th the time that the lead does, by rights they deserve 1/10th. If the lead makes $10mn then surely the extra is entitled to $1mn on the equal pay for equal work metric.

This type of posturing is so typical of the new age. Will Streep accept a pay cut to equal out her male peers in movies? Unlikely. Hollywood reeks of hypocrisy on most levels. To take Cumberbatch at his word suggests 1000 caveats  that will only filter to those he would deem worthy. He’d never expect the extra to be paid anything near what he earns even on an hourly basis. Only those that might inflate his social justifiablity.

Perhaps male supermodels should howl in protest that their female equivalents smash them for pay. Or is that female supermodels are plainly more desired than men by the end user – cosmetics, luxury goods and apparel.

Diversity in Japan

AA89B2B7-E426-4562-87C6-5D8014EA584F.jpeg

Mizuho Bank was one of the first Japanese companies to openly embrace diversity and LGBT in a pride parade it promoted around 6 months ago . All the placards of ‘diversity is our strength’ and ‘inclusive society’ were displayed. The bank says it is the first in Japan to offer products which include housing loans that can be taken out jointly by same-sex partners, as well as principal guaranteed trust products — under which assets can be passed on to a same-sex partner.

According to an online survey by Dentsu in 2015, 7.6% of the population identified as LGBT. LGBT is not necessarily frowned upon at all. In fact many celebrities make a small fortune for being so. Matsuko Deluxe is a great example. She maintained her top spot in last year’s edition of the Nikkei Entertainment’s annual “Talent Power Ranking“.

For a culture that appears on the outside excessively conservative, variety shows embrace the very characters that shatter that myth. In such an orderly, consensus driven society their popularity stems from the fact they so brazenly buck the cultural stereotypes. After 20 years living here there would seem to be little evidence of blanket ‘discrimination’ against LGBT communities. Japan has existed more on a “don’t tell” mentality.

In the workplace more Japanese companies are embracing ‘nadeshiko’ to promote women. It was not uncommon to have a Japanese company look to marry off females to the legions of salarymen. So women were often overlooked for promotion for fear they’d raise kids and quit. While a terribly weak excuse to be sure one would hope that Japanese managers today  focus on hiring the best talent rather than hit predetermined gender quotas. There are plenty of talented Japanese women who can comfortably be selected on ability not gender. Although some will argue hard quotas will be needed so as to make companies feel comfortable they aren’t seen as ‘behind the times.’ Having said that government guidelines saw 90% of corporates adopt independent directors on their boards. Peer pressure seemingly works here.

However following ‘guidelines’ for the sake of it makes little sense. Were females more competent than the similarly ranked males on a 3:1 ratio in one company why not promote on that basis rather than a state suggested 2:1? If another company saw men 3:1 more skilled than women why wouldn’t a company want to rationally promote on those grounds? Indeed if companies look to succeed they should make decisions based on what is best for profitability and shareholders.

One corporate was asked this question of hiring more women at the AGM.  The CEO said he’d be only to glad to do so provided he could source suitable candidates. Hard to hit targets if the slew of applicants is 99% male. Indeed the company hires based on what it perceives as best fit for the business.

Things are changing in Japan on many fronts.

With marriage rates dwindling and childbirth nudging the 1mn mark per annum, more women are choosing to put the career first and have kids later and later.  Shotgun weddings now number 25% of all marriages and several companies are capitalizing on this trend by offering express matrimonial services. Society is changing. Note the report we wrote on the breakdown in the ‘nuclear family’ which tables in detail those seismic shifts.

Diversity in Japan. Far from wearing pussyhats and protesting with hostility there would seem to be many awaiting some centralized guidelines. While most would expect CM to tear strips off Mizuho for lining up for politicizing the workplace for once I’d credit it for “PROACTIVITY”. Indeed it wasn’t so long ago that then PM Koizumi had to tell corporate Japan that it was ok to take ties off in sweltering summer with power shortages in what was coined as “cool biz”.  Such a decision of common sense couldn’t be formulated by proactive management.

Mizuho’s credit doesn’t so much revolve around its appeals for more diversity rather for making a bold step to decide to do something like this without waiting for external guidance. With more internally driven open mindedness like this it paints a better role model for creating change.

This does not call for indoctrination of social ideals in the workplace. By all means provide hiring managers with better training on identifying talent but do not force identity politics in the office. Individual ability trumps identity every time.

So full marks to Mizuho. The message for Japan Inc to grasp from it is proactivity and common sense, not awaiting to be told what to do by some bureaucracy that is probably a worse offender of the guidelines it will inevitably seek to push.