The Truth About the Pay Gap

**Feckless** · 12th-August-2008

http://www.reason.com/news/show/119920.html

The Truth About the Pay Gap

Feminist politics and bad economics

Steve Chapman | April 30, 2007

New Year's Day is called that because it begins a new year, and Thanksgiving has that name because it's an occasion for expressing gratitude. But Equal Pay Day, observed this year on April 24, is named for something that, we are told, doesn't exist -- equal pay for men and women.

The National Committee on Pay Equity used the occasion to announce that among full-time workers, women make only 77 cents for every dollar paid to men. The three leading Democratic presidential candidates have all endorsed legislation to fix the problem.

And the effort got new fuel from a report by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) Educational Foundation, which says women are paid less starting with their first jobs out of college, and that the deficit only grows with time. Pay discrimination, says AAUW, is still "a serious problem for women in the work force."

In reality, that's not clear at all. What we know from an array of evidence, including this report, is that most if not all of the discrepancy can be traced to factors other than sexism. When it comes to pay equity, we really have come a long way.

On its face, the evidence in the AAUW study looks damning. "One year out of college," it says, "women working full-time earn only 80 percent as much as their male colleagues earn. Ten years after graduation, women fall farther behind, earning only 69 percent as much as men earn."

But read more, and you learn things that don't get much notice on Equal Pay Day. As the report acknowledges, women with college degrees tend to go into fields like education, psychology and the humanities, which typically pay less than the sectors preferred by men, such as engineering, math and business. They are also more likely than men to work for nonprofit groups and local governments, which do not offer salaries that Alex Rodriguez would envy.

As they get older, many women elect to work less so they can spend time with their children. A decade after graduation, 39 percent of women are out of the work force or working part time -- compared with only 3 percent of men. When these mothers return to full-time jobs, they naturally earn less than they would have if they had never left.

Even before they have kids, men and women often do different things that may affect earnings. A year out of college, notes AAUW, women in full-time jobs work an average of 42 hours a week, compared to 45 for men. Men are also far more likely to work more than 50 hours a week.

Buried in the report is a startling admission: "After accounting for all factors known to affect wages, about one-quarter of the gap remains unexplained and may be attributed to discrimination" (my emphasis). Another way to put it is that three-quarters of the gap clearly has innocent causes -- and that we actually don't know whether discrimination accounts for the rest.

I asked Harvard economist Claudia Goldin if there is sufficient evidence to conclude that women experience systematic pay discrimination. "No," she replied. There are certainly instances of discrimination, she says, but most of the gap is the result of different choices. Other hard-to-measure factors, Goldin thinks, largely account for the remaining gap -- "probably not all, but most of it."

The divergent career paths of men and women may reflect a basic unfairness in what's expected of them. It could be that a lot of mothers, if they had their way, would rather pursue careers but have to stay home with the kids because their husbands insist. Or it may be that for one reason or another, many mothers prefer to take on the lion's share of child-rearing. In any case, the pay disparity caused by these choices can't be blamed on piggish employers.

June O'Neill, an economist at Baruch College and former director of the Congressional Budget Office, has uncovered something that debunks the discrimination thesis. Take out the effects of marriage and child-rearing, and the difference between the genders suddenly vanishes. "For men and women who never marry and never have children, there is no earnings gap," she said in an interview.

That's a fact you won't hear from AAUW or the Democratic presidential candidates. The prevailing impulse on Equal Pay Day was to lament how far we are from the goal. The true revelation, though, is how close.

I like the way feminist attack you with the pay gap. I remember this one:

I highly recommend that you read this fact sheet on the wage gap from the National Women's Law Center

The fun part is they can never prove that this gap is because of discrimination. I could say its because of the “Flying-Spaghetti-Monster” and it has the same significance than the above. Oh and note that studies feminist cite always forget to take sth into account. Its even better if you tell them sth like this

An April 15, 2005 article titled "Gender Wage Gap Is Feminist Fiction" from the libertarian Independent Women's Forum states, "A study of the gender wage gap conducted by economist June O' Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that women earn 98 percent of what men do when controlled for experience, education, and number of years on the job." [6]

you get that

They are an anti-feminist organization for women. Don't make us laugh by citing their "statistics."

...even though they have valid points that could explain the gap in my feminist study

Ah well...

(There is more at the bottom - http://antimisandry.com/122234-post14.html)

**byslexic_danana** · 12th-August-2008

Quote from Feckless

An April 15, 2005 article titled "Gender Wage Gap Is Feminist Fiction" from the libertarian Independent Women's Forum states, "A study of the gender wage gap conducted by economist June O' Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that women earn 98 percent of what men do when controlled for experience, education, and number of years on the job." [6]

And even more, when controlled for hours of overtime worked, and toilet breaks........

**Percy** · 12th-August-2008

Ahh, Banana, I like the toilet break one.

Let's see. Say a chap and chapess need three toilet breaks a working day.

His take on average 1.5 mins and hers takes an additional 3.5 mins of waiting for a cubicle, adjusting her clothes, touching up her makeup etc. That's 10.5 additional minutes a day. 5 days a week is 52.5 mins a week. Which in a 48 week year of work amounts to 42 hours.

That's a whole week's work that she does LESS than him!

I don't think Warren Farrell calculated that one.

**brian44** · 12th-August-2008

Quote from dyslexic_banana

And even more, when controlled for hours of overtime worked, and toilet breaks........

How about gossiping on the phone and by email?

**byslexic_danana** · 12th-August-2008

Quote from Percy

Ahh, Banana, I like the toilet break one.

Let's see. Say a chap and chapess need three toilet breaks a working day.

His take on average 1.5 mins and hers takes an additional 3.5 mins of waiting for a cubicle, adjusting her clothes, touching up her makeup etc. That's 10.5 additional minutes a day. 5 days a week is 52.5 mins a week. Which in a 48 week year of work amounts to 42 hours.

That's a whole week's work that she does LESS than him!

I don't think Warren Farrell calculated that one.

Quite literally spot on, and 1 in 48 is GREATER than the 2% disparity left over. So there we have it!

Quote from brian44

How about gossiping on the phone and by email?

These too. Heck, I think the pay gap should be MORE in men's favour, to be honest. I blame much of the fairly recent emphasis on teambuilding etc etc, to be down to the growing numbers of women in the workforce; the office isn't a playground, I say; socialising should be left primarily to OUTSIDE of office hours. People who keep to themselves more, and get down to it, are the most productive, I believe.

Very good to see you back. I'd wondered where you'd been. Have you got any further with your plans to move abroad, as of yet?

**brian44** · 12th-August-2008

Quote from dyslexic_banana

Quite literally spot on, and 1 in 48 is GREATER than the 2% disparity left over. So there we have it!

These too. Heck, I think the pay gap should be MORE in men's favour, to be honest. I blame much of the fairly recent emphasis on teambuilding etc etc, to be down to the growing numbers of women in the workforce; the office isn't a playground, I say; socialising should be left primarily to OUTSIDE of office hours. People who keep to themselves more, and get down to it, are the most productive, I believe.

Very good to see you back. I'd wondered where you'd been. Have you got any further with your plans to move abroad, as of yet?

Hello Dyslexic,

Thought I'd pop over and see what's going on. Been too busy fighting depression to fight feminism lately. I'm still working on my escape and the impending house price crash that seems to be looming across Europe will make it much more feasible for me. I've got to leave this spirit sapping country and at least try to grab some happiness.

**brian44** · 12th-August-2008

BTW Dislexic, thanks for the welcome back. Didn't think anyone would notice I'd gone!

**KellyMac** · 12th-August-2008

They are an anti-feminist organization for women. Don't make us laugh by citing their "statistics."

LOL!!!

They don't like the site, so the cite can't possibly be taken seriously!!!

That's priceless...

**Feckless** · 12th-August-2008

I like it how they call statistic that say "we have no other explanation than discrimination but can´t prove it" are called facts

Its typical....don´t you know (stupid) american women only earn 77% of what a male earns. Its a fact. Damn you patriachat *shakes fist angrily* (my impressions of a feminist)

I wrote a whole lot on wage gap myself during that discussion ( http://community.feministing.com/200...le-of-mra.html ) which I think I won because she admitted at the end there is a need for MRAs hahaha (my shoulder hurts from patting it by myself)

Feck on wage gap 1:
First of all let´s look at how the data is collected. They take everything full-time working men and women earn and put it in two big jars. Than they calculate the average wage. So you can say the average male earns this and the average female earns that. Than someone says the difference is there because of discrimination only. Well this is sth that can´t be proofed nor disproofed. I could say its because of the “Flying-Spaghetti-Monster” and we couldn´t be sure of that too. So let as use some logic and I will create an example for you. Lets say we don´t have a country but a hospital. In this hospital we have 30 doctors (25 male and 5 female) and 150 nurses (125 female 25 male). Lets say the nurses earn 1000$ a month while the doctors earn 2000$ a month. So the 50 male in this hospital make 75000$ while all the 130 females make 135000$ total. Which means in this hospital the average male earns 1500$ while the average female earns rounded up 1040$. Now you can say that for every $ a male earns a female only earns 0.69$. In our case it is not because of discrimination but because of the fact that nurses earn less than doctors. If we get back to our study you see that we compare stewardess with pilots, bankers with cleaner ladies, system-admins with secretaries, butchers with bakers and so on. Its like comparing apples to bananas and than saying apples get discriminated because the banana is so long. All informations are meshed together. To find discrimination we have to look deeper. We have to see one company, with the same job, with the same hours, away from bonuses. Than when in this job someone gets paid less because of the gender we have to punish them for this discrimination. To look at the whole picture and making assumptions doesn’t really make sense.

And that is what I said to her statistic:
Feck on wage gap 2:
I carefully read your study. Still the points I mentioned (and the anti-feminist study as well) weren´t considered in your study. And still they compare meridians of a complete industry. The Example on sales. A lot of women are working in supermarkets at the cash box while a lot of males are car salesman which again might have female secretaries working for them as well all with different wages. What about freelance workers? They may earn a lot and work alone. They go into the statistics as well even though they employ no one. Or the construction site example. Most men will work on this site as a building worker and probably get danger bonuses for working in great heights for example. Where are females mostly working on construction sites? Probably again as secretary for the administration. If you look at the examples where women sued against discrimination they were suing a big firm -> Wallmart.
So I still think to spot discrimination you have to compare staff in a single company without bonus payment. If there is a discrepancy because of gender discrimination, punish them.

The best part is, she didn´t get into detail with my points. She just gave it up. She said its a fact and I wrote and wrote and made a good point (ouch shoulder hurting again) so she had no more arguments and well shut up about this. Made me fell well....hehe

**Percy** · 13th-August-2008

A crisp set of arguements for a web thread, Feckless. Nicely done, Sir.

as for...

The best part is, she didn´t get into detail with my points. She just gave it up.

...don't you hef veys of makink her tok ?

**Feckless** · 13th-August-2008

Quote from Percy

...don't you hef veys of makink her tok ?

Oh mein Vriend I hef many veys und she vill talk and then Vorld domination iz only ein step away.....Muhahahahahahahaha

**shaazam** · 13th-August-2008

Employers pay wimin what they are worth if they're not screwed before some feminit quota tribunal

**Feckless** · 22nd-December-2008

From IWF quoted in the above:

Gender Wage Gap Is Feminist Fiction

by Arrah Nielsen
April 15, 2005

[...]

Equal pay for equal work has been enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act since it was made law in 1972. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also ban sex-based wage discrimination. So it seems pretty remarkable that the wage gap is so wide and pervasive even today. Attorneys should be having a field day with class-action lawsuits. But they are not. Could it be that even the legal establishment is complicit in this glaringly obvious patriarchal conspiracy?

The 76-cent statistic (now actually 80 cents, according to the U.S. Census Bureau) is misleading because it is a raw comparison of all working men and women. Thus a female receptionist working 40-hour weeks is tossed in with the male orthopedic surgeon putting in 70-hour weeks.

A study of the gender wage gap conducted by economist June O' Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that women earn 98 percent of what men do when controlled for experience, education, and number of years on the job.

Warren Farrell, three-time board of directors member of the National Organization for Women New York City, exhaustively debunks the wage gap myth in his book "Why Men Earn More." Farrell documents occupations requiring bachelor's degrees in which women's starting salaries actually exceed men's. Female investment bankers and dieticians, for example, can expect to earn 116 percent to 130 percent of their male counterparts' salaries.

The real reason than men tend to out-earn women is the choices they make. Men are far more likely to take unpleasant and dangerous jobs, what Farrell calls the "death and exposure professions." For example, firefighting, truck driving, mining and logging -- to name just a few high-risk jobs -- are all more than 95 percent male. Conversely, low risk jobs like secretarial work and childcare are more than 95 percent female.

Farrell points out that in California, prison guards can earn $70,000 per year plus full medical benefits and retire after thirty years with a hefty retirement package. But it takes little imagination to figure out why California still has a difficult time staffing its prisons, and it goes without saying that most prison guards are male. Says Farrell, "As with most jobs, there's an inverse relationship between fulfillment and pay."

Because men are more likely to take jobs that are unpleasant, dangerous or dull in exchange for higher pay, they reap the financial benefit. Farrell summarizes this phenomenon this way: "Jobs that expose you to the sleet and the heat pay more than those that are indoors and neat."

Another reason women's average earnings are less than men's is that they take more time out of the workforce for care-giving. Women, more so than men, adjust their work schedules to accommodate their families, and in poll after poll, they express a preference to do so.

"Well, why can't men and women share domestic responsibilities 50-50 so women will be just as free and unencumbered as men are?" the conventional feminist argument goes. Such an arrangement is unrealistic as it requires both husband and wife to work part-time. Couples typically find it easiest for each partner to specialize and make the sacrifices required to sustain the family.

Scholars can debate whether it is societal pressure or innate desire that makes women elect to spend more time with their children. But so long as these decisions are a reflection of women's expressed preferences, this isn't a problem that needs to be solved.

Arrah Nielsen is a junior fellow at IWF.

http://www.iwf.org/campus/show/18948.html

Women Earn 77% of Men and Other Falsehoods

by Donna Wiesner Keene
September 22, 2008

Equal Rights Amendment, pay equity, comparable worth ... the ERA of my teen years is back with all the false statistics and class and gender warfare.

Barack Obama last week began an ad campaign to bring it all back, starting with the statistics that shaped me as a conservative, a feminist. (Yes, feminist. Today's feminists were the women's liberation movement of the 1970s. When bra-burning women conjured up too many bad images, they co-opted the mainstream conservatives' word.)

NOW, (the National Organization for Women) and other women's libbers endorsed Obama in a press conference at the National Press Club, using the Democratic nominee for President's oft-repeated and untrue claim that "women earn 77% of what men earn." The figure is on his website under Fighting for Pay Equity and he thinks it justifies putting the government in charge of determining private-sector pay to ensure women and men "earn" the same pay.

[...]

In 1970 women were supposed to earn 74% of what men earned. Obama says 77%. Does that figure amaze you? It should-it is a boldfaced lie. Women have earned 98% of what men earn in a similar job with similar education and experience since before 1985 when I cranked the numbers in the Reagan Administration.

Part of the problem is the Republican administration's refusal to take control of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which has resulted in undue credibility for an agency where bureaucrats and statisticians run as they will. The definition of full time work is 35 hours per week, and not all 52 weeks a year. Since more men work 40+ hours and 52 weeks a year, voila, women make less than men do.

In fact, workers who average 44 or more hours per week earn an average of 100% more than workers who average only 40 hours per week. Men in full-time jobs tend to work 4 to 10 more hours more per week than women in full-time jobs.

[...]

Mrs. Keene, a senior fellow at the Independent Women's Forum, served in the Reagan Administration at the Women's Bureau, U.S. Department of Labor.

http://www.iwf.org/news/show/20889.html

Damn I like those women.....

**TheOldOligarch** · 22nd-December-2008

Ha! can there be any serious doubt that if not for bloated salaries from the unproductive state sector women would be earning about 30% of what men earn?

**shaazam** · 23rd-December-2008

wimmin don't like risking their necks or getting their hands dirty

how many wimmin go out crab fishing on the Bering Sea for example

the money is great but so is the risk but I guess those crab fisher men smell some !!!

now that is not christian Dior No 15.5