As an example, company of 100, 50 women. Boss is paid £500k, everyone else gets UK median £35k. Whichever sex the boss is they now show a 26% gender pay gap.

If the boss gets 3x the median, that's a 4% gap.

I'd like to see analysis which looks at same qualified people and charts their progression with attempts to understand why their wage changed and whether those changes have any discernible sex bias.

Men seem to fall across a wider distribution (both higher and lower paid), as appears in other characteristics.

Here's one example of the ONS data: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwor...

Not only is the data missing variance, but the small print also say that it excludes overtime.

Could I please see the variance in the data which is a very simple, important and often missing aspect when presenting data? I would also like to see the average amount of work hours (and overtime) per industry and gender, the average amount of flex time and other non-income benefits, and common known sources for wage differences such as how often a person changes job. All this is missing, but again the lowest hanging fruit is the variance which make any dataset completely useless (and I stand by this statement) for any complex dataset.

Cool, I'll have to look at the new data clearly, a priori it contradicts my analysis - I only recalled one situation previously where discrimination appears to give higher wages to women (over 30, working full-time), 15% is quite the gap did it make headlines?

Note they don't compare like roles here, just same industry sector IIRC.

The largest gap is 95% in favour of female archivists; that must be anomalous.

Men under 30 earn much less than women under 30. No one cares either.

Isn't that contradicted in Fig. 3 of parent's [0]?

Might have been true until 2015 but not anymore.

Yes, younger women friends post on Facebook how they're stopping work for the year in October (?) to make up for the pay-gap. I assume maybe that's true to some extent in USA -- they're certainly sold on the idea all the men around them are getting an easy deal.

Doesn't that just mean they'll widen the pay gap by not getting paid in October? Then next year they'll need to take two months off, and so on.

At least they'll have plenty of time to post about it on Facebook :)

It's a meme "we should stop working in October [IIRC] because we are only paid for 10 months compared to a man's full year". It's not an actual plan.

I've seen this specific meme a few times; dozens of posts about gender pay gap including from under-30 part-timers who have a good chance - according to the available stats - of being paid more than men in an equivalently skilled role.