Student Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Gender Inequality
Introduction
Most companies across the world are under the notion of male employees being better than females. Silicon Valley companies have a culture of promoting male employees than female employees despite performance and eligibility. Research findings show that gender equality at workplaces is likely to alleviate the economic prospects of individual households as well as countries and the global economy. On the contrary, sexual stereotypes claim that gender equating at workplaces will only worsen the economy. The U.S, for example, loses hundreds of millions of dollars in sexual harassment cases (Heather et al. 2). It is factual that gender inequality at workplaces has negative consequences on economies.
Unequal Pay
In most companies, there exists inequality where men earn more than women do. The existing differences in earnings between men and women are one of the main reasons for the lagging world economy. Citing gender inequality in the corporate world, World Bank CEO Goervieva states that it is costly to the world because of the underrepresentation of women. According to the World Bank Group (WBG) report, if both men and women were earning the same salaries, the increase in global wealth per person would be $23 620 (Danylova and Kats 104). It is justifiable since the population of women to men is equal if women are not more. Since women have higher household involvement, better salaries translate to household stability. Consequently, the economies of many countries would have a low poverty index. Paying women lesser than men because of their gender leads to a growing poverty index in many countries across the world.
The claim that paid maternity leave compensates for the arguable salary inequality does not hold ground. According to a May 2018 newspaper article by Joya Misra of CNBC, Most U.S companies do not pay maternity leave, leave alone, making them accessible to the majority of the female employees. Maternity leaves that many employers claim it compensate for the gap in salaries between men and women is a limitation for single mothers who strive first to access the funds. When you consider single mothers, the said leave first does not sustain them (Misra). For instance, maternity leave, when granted, lasts for only fourteen weeks. Since childcare is expensive in many countries such as the U.S, female parents often quit their jobs to raise their children since their salaries equate the childcare expenses. If they were receiving equal pay to their male counterparts, they would retain their jobs. Many families in the United States experience economic retardation due to denial of maternity leave compensation pulls down the financial stability of many families.
Sexual stereotypes have it wrong when they state women can save a lot in retaining homestead chores. Most of the sexual stereotypes say that the childcare costs the U.S. families suffer can have an end by having women tending to childcare. They claim that it will both save childcare costs and increase workplace capacity for men is wrong since childcare is not a continuous activity. The claim only makes sense for a short period but is considerate of the economic impact the remaining twenty-plus years will have on homesteads and the economy in general. When a woman is working, the childcare costs translates to another job rather than quitting converting the same opportunity for a short period (Picker and Al-Ali). Economically, when she does not leave, two people (childcare employee and the mother) would be boosting economic progress. The claim also supports gender inequality but has gross economic consequences at the end.
Promotion
Employers promote more men than at workplaces and consequently lead to earning disparities. In the U.S, gender inequality is prominent in multinationals such as Walmart and Boeing. Catherine Ross Dunham, a Professor at the Elon University School of Law findings on the disparity of promotions among employees, states that the U.S at large suffers economic loss because of the vice. It is evident in many cases, such as Ellen Pao versus Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers of Silicon Valley. Despite being an Ivy League management analyst, her promotion was unsuccessful even though she qualified. She was instrumental in getting the company an initial public offering with RPX Corporation (Dunham 64). The culture of promoting employees is dominant among Silicon Valley companies, and her case justifies it. Although the company promotes employees based on performance, it was evident gender inequality played a role in denying her promotion.
Fewer women hold positions of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) despite many of them having degrees than men. The case of Ellen Pao justifies that promotion at workplaces is not only determined by employee output but their gender as well. Despite long tenures and breadth of experience, Pao and fellow female promotion-eligible employees experienced discrimination in favor of three eligible male colleagues. Research findings indicate that a female CEO tends to nurture employees to grow, unlike their male counterparts. Consequently, they have an overall higher performance. Companies that have female CEOs have higher profit margins compared to those with male CEOs in the industry (Dunham 65). It is therefore vivid that gender-based promotion at Silicon Valley multinationals results in low economic output for most companies and consequently slows economic growth.
Most male CEOs oppose the fact that discrimination against women at their places of work, citing that there are as many female employees as males. They only prove numbers in the workplaces and not their salaries, promotions, and other benefits such as maternity leaves. It is, therefore, unreasonable to think that numbers justify inequality aspects such as salaries. According to a senior newspaper contributor Kim Elsesser of Forbes, there are fewer CEOs who are women and at boardrooms. In the U.S, women hold a mere 20% of positions at boards of S&P 500 companies (Elsesser). However, for such companies such as Volkswagen AG, whose board has Christine Hohmann-Dennhard as a member, experience higher CEO pay, and excellent problem-solving. It is strong evidence that failure to embrace gender equality leads to not only individual economic problems but corporately as well.
Sexual harassment
Sexual harassment at many workplaces leads to financial stress due to changing between jobs and often alters career attainment among women. A research study by Heather McLaughlin, Christopher Uggen, and Amy Blackstone shows that majority of females experience sexual harassment at their workplaces. Most of the female respondents cited that the practice makes them compromise their career pursuits as well as experiencing financial constraints. Sexual harassment objectifies women at workplaces and economically results in the inadequate workforce since most of them resign. The gender inequality, a practice that reinforces sexist stereotyping, sexual harassment lowers the economic prospects of many corporate entities. In the U.S, the federal government experiences a financial loss of $267 million due to sexual harassment (Heather et al. 2). The impact on the economic successes of individual companies led to changes in many organizational cultures. For instance, many organizations are against sexual relationships between their employees who are either not a couple or single.
Conclusion
In many countries, gross economic consequences are due to women’s discrimination in places of work. The United States, to be specific, loses a total of $267 million because of sexual harassment at their workplaces. However, research findings project a wealth growth per person of $23, 620. Companies such as Volkswagen have enough evidence on the economic contribution of women. Despite claims that maternity leaves are expensive and justify the unequal salaries between men and women, they are not accessible to the majority of female employees. It is, therefore, essential to ensure gender equality at workplaces for economic growth.
Works Cited
Danylova, T. V., and L. A. Kats. “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”: The negative impact of gender inequality on the global economy and public health.” Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research 15 (2019): 101-110.
Dunham, Catherine Ross. “Third generation discrimination: The ripple effects of gender bias in the workplace.” Akron L. Rev. 51 (2017): 55.
McLaughlin, Heather, Christopher Uggen, and Amy Blackstone. “The economic and career effects of sexual harassment on working women.” Gender & Society 31.3 (2017): 333-358.
Elsesser, Kim. The Truth About Women’s Impact On Corporate Boards (It’s Not Good News). 23 June 2016. 01 May 2020. <https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2016/06/23/the-truth-about-womens-impact-on-corporate-boards-its-not-good-news/#2360f0255ecb>.
Misra, Joya. The U.S. is stingier with child care and maternity leave than the rest of the world. 11 May 2018. 1 May 2020. <https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/11/us-stingier-with-child-care-maternity-leave-than-rest-of-the-world.html?&qsearchterm=Women%20employability%20and%20maternity%20leave>.
Picker, Leslie, and Fahiemah Al-Ali. Even Destination Maternity is having a gender diversity debate about its board — and dissident women win. 23 May 2018. 01 May 2020. <https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/22/even-destination-maternity-is-having-a-gender-diversity-debate-about-its-board.html?&qsearchterm=Women%20employability%20and%20maternity%20leave>.