Bad News and Irrelevant News

This is why I never want to work for the BBC. (Never again, I mean. I did and left.) They completed interesting research on Britain’s gender pay gap (widening) but released it with a headline saying: ‘Women are earning more than men in some public sector organisations - but only in the lower-paid grades, according to new research by the BBC.’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8044720.stm

Firstly, it’s dull. I know my blog headlines aren’t great but I don’t care if anybody reads, I'm just tapping away in my bedroom for the relaxation. The BBC is meant to speak to the masses.

Secondly, it’s irrelevant. This headline reminded me of that fantastic episode of ‘The Office’ (British version) where Ricky Gervais’ character, David Brent finds out he has been promoted but half his staff are being laid off. He tells them he has good news and bad news and then fills them in, but one replies "that wasn't good news and bad news, just bad news and irrelevant news", or something to that effect. You probably had to be there.

Anyway, this headline is irrelevant news. To start with, a low pay-grade public sector job is hardly something to get excited about – no offence to those noble women and men who take pride in holding such a position. Good for you. You are better people than I. But really, it’s not ‘problem solved’? I’m guessing men can’t stand lower paid public sector jobs and it’s because long suffering women hang in there that they end up earning more.

The real story from this research was that when part time workers are taken into account, men earn on average 23% more than women doing the equivalent job. Another depressing statistic but how boring life would be without challenges and this is a good one.

Offsetting the Gender Pay Gap - How's this idea?

I've just had the best idea. Net-a-porter should be thanking me for this marketing tip. I was sitting here reading a bunch of depressing gender pay gap stories because my blog instructor (yes... might as well get some formal training before unleashing myself on you) said I had to learn to react to news stories, which made me think I had to get angry about something and I’m not good at that.

Also, I want my kind of feminism to be the non-angry kind so I was sitting here working out how to react happily to gender inequality. Not easy. Then Eureka: Companies should discount their products for women by the same proportion as the gender pay gap - even things that way.

“Want a plasma TV? $2000 for you Sir, but Madam if you buy, it’s just $1548 because your hourly rate for tolerating the same morale-destroying office politics is 22.6% lower than your husband's assuming you’re an average woman and today we’re treating you that way”.

States could enforce by law that retailers had to discount goods for female purchasers proportionate to the pay gap. It could spur pay rises for women across the board and companies wouldn't suffer because knowing us, we'd all go straight out to spend our increased cash on basic needs like anti-wrinkle creams. It could backfire. We could find ourselves demoted so our pay looked high in relation to our role. I guess we’d have to counter that with extra discounts proportionate to discrepancies in leadership representation. OK, it’s getting slightly complicated but the Internet required code, cables and whole community of people who think like Chris Anderson so in comparison a bit of math and some law enforcement shouldn’t overwhelm us. I’m onto something.