There Is No Male-Female Wage Gap

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

Carrie L. Lukas

The Wall Street Journal

Independent Women's Forum - There Is No Male-Female Wage Gap

Tuesday is Equal Pay Day-so dubbed by the National Committee for Pay Equity, which represents feminist groups including the National Organization for Women, Feminist Majority, the National Council of Women's Organizations and others. The day falls on April 12 because, according to feminist logic, women have to work that far into a calendar year before they earn what men already earned the year before.

In years past, feminist leaders marked the occasion by rallying outside the U.S. Capitol to decry the pernicious wage gap and call for government action to address systematic discrimination against women. This year will be relatively quiet. Perhaps feminists feel awkward protesting a liberal-dominated government-or perhaps they know that the recent economic downturn has exposed as ridiculous their claims that our economy is ruled by a sexist patriarchy.

The unemployment rate is consistently higher among men than among women. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 9.3% of men over the age of 16 are currently out of work. The figure for women is 8.3%. Unemployment fell for both sexes over the past year, but labor force participation (the percentage of working age people employed) also dropped. The participation rate fell more among men (to 70.4% today from 71.4% in March 2010) than women (to 58.3% from 58.8%). That means much of the improvement in unemployment numbers comes from discouraged workers-particularly male ones-giving up their job searches entirely.

Men have been hit harder by this recession because they tend to work in fields like construction, manufacturing and trucking, which are disproportionately affected by bad economic conditions. Women cluster in more insulated occupations, such as teaching, health care and service industries.

Yet if you can accept that the job choices of men and women lead to different unemployment rates, then you shouldn't be surprised by other differences-like differences in average pay.

Feminist hand-wringing about the wage gap relies on the assumption that the differences in average earnings stem from discrimination. Thus the mantra that women make only 77% of what men earn for equal work. But even a cursory review of the data proves this assumption false.

The Department of Labor's Time Use survey shows that full-time working women spend an average of 8.01 hours per day on the job, compared to 8.75 hours for full-time working men. One would expect that someone who works 9% more would also earn more. This one fact alone accounts for more than a third of the wage gap.

Choice of occupation also plays an important role in earnings. While feminists suggest that women are coerced into lower-paying job sectors, most women know that something else is often at work. Women gravitate toward jobs with fewer risks, more comfortable conditions, regular hours, more personal fulfillment and greater flexibility. Simply put, many women-not all, but enough to have a big impact on the statistics-are willing to trade higher pay for other desirable job characteristics.

Men, by contrast, often take on jobs that involve physical labor, outdoor work, overnight shifts and dangerous conditions (which is also why men suffer the overwhelming majority of injuries and deaths at the workplace). They put up with these unpleasant factors so that they can earn more.

Recent studies have shown that the wage gap shrinks-or even reverses-when relevant factors are taken into account and comparisons are made between men and women in similar circumstances. In a 2010 study of single, childless urban workers between the ages of 22 and 30, the research firm Reach Advisors found that women earned an average of 8% more than their male counterparts. Given that women are outpacing men in educational attainment, and that our economy is increasingly geared toward knowledge-based jobs, it makes sense that women's earnings are going up compared to men's.

Should we celebrate the closing of the wage gap? Certainly it's good news that women are increasingly productive workers, but women whose husbands and sons are out of work or under-employed are likely to have a different perspective. After all, many American women wish they could work less, and that they weren't the primary earners for their families.

Few Americans see the economy as a battle between the sexes. They want opportunity to abound so that men and women can find satisfying work situations that meet their unique needs. That-not a day dedicated to manufactured feminist grievances-would be something to celebrate.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Saintmichaeldefendthem1
spelling

[swampgeek]

I read this article in the Journal the day it came out. I understand the arguments and much of the data and reasoning are sound, BUT there are still instances of wage discrimination. My wife works at a university and in her department there are several AVPs (associate vice presidents), where a male counterpart with less experience and a mildly different job makes more than 10% more than my wife. There is actually a conversation where a VP ( a woman) said that she would not consider raising my wife's salary to an equal level as it had administrative duties that "diminished" the position. Over 60% of the work the her male counterpart does she has to verify or correct to insure it is properly done and she get's paid less. Come on man?

It is pure discrimination and I have told her that we need to sue. I am quite against the frivolous law suits that flood our courts, but this is maddening. She pushes along and will probably end up filling a grievance when she moves on in the coming months, but this does still occur.

The playing field is "more" level, I don't see it as even yet. To be used as a weapon the way many woman's organizations use it today isn't right and many of those organizations don't speak for nearly as big a swath of the ladies as they once did. There will always be biases and prejudices, we are fallible humans and society is far from perfect. All will be equal someday, but I doubt it will happen while we are in this form or imperfection.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

I read this article in the Journal the day it came out. I understand the arguments and much of the data and reasoning are sound, BUT there are still instances of wage discrimination. My wife works at a university and in her department there are several AVPs (associate vice presidents), where a male counterpart with less experience and a mildly different job makes more than 10% more than my wife. There is actually a conversation where a VP ( a woman) said that she would not consider raising my wife's salary to an equal level as it had administrative duties that "diminished" the position. Over 60% of the work the her male counterpart does she has to verify or correct to insure it is properly done and she get's paid less. Come on man?

It is pure discrimination and I have told her that we need to sue. I am quite against the frivolous law suits that flood our courts, but this is maddening. She pushes along and will probably end up filling a grievance when she moves on in the coming months, but this does still occur.

The playing field is "more" level, I don't see it as even yet. To be used as a weapon the way many woman's organizations use it today isn't right and many of those organizations don't speak for nearly as big a swath of the ladies as they once did. There will always be biases and prejudices, we are fallible humans and society is far from perfect. All will be equal someday, but I doubt it will happen while we are in this form or imperfection.

I'm sorry for the situation your wife is in and I hope it gets resolved. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that this is an anecdote only and not an indicator of a general trend as I'm sure others can tell personal experiences of less qualified women getting a position as well. This to say, I hope your viewpoint is not determined only by what is happening to your wife.

I view many of these feminist organizations in the same light as the NAACP, unions, and many other advocacy groups that have outlived their usefulness. You'll see Al Sharpton manufacturing issues where none exist, attacking white police officers for the "crime" of defending themselves against a black assailant, etc. The truth is, America is enjoying the closest thing attainable to true parity between sexes and races and our civil rights laws have achieved their desired effect. For these organizations, it's the continuance of the organization which serves as its chief mission. Their relevence having descended into antiquity, they rely creating the impression that eggregious disparities still exist and so they conjure for themselves battles to wage in order to establish their continued importance (and funding).

One well established demographic that Lukas alluded to is the higher numbers of females going to college compared to males who are now outnumbered in this regard. When this translates into decisively higher wages for women who will more often qualify for administrative positions, I wonder how these feminist groups will continue to establish the "injustice" toward women in the workplace?

Edited April 15, 2011 by Saintmichaeldefendthem1
spelling

[mightynancy]

Keep in mind that the IWF has its own agenda, and Ms. Lukas's conclusions are colored by it. I can find you studies that show different conclusions from sources with other biases.

The Gender Pay Gap by Industry - NYTimes.com

Equal Pay and the Gender Gap: Men Still Outearn Women - TIME This one includes stats controlled for a number of factors, such as experience or whether they belong to a union (!).

This recession, coupled with higher university enrollment among women, will lead to some interesting data in the decade to come. There are a lot of sociological factors at work in this arena.

[classylady]

I wonder if people like me get counted in the unemployment stats. I was going to be furloughed, but luckily I had worked long enough, (10 years) for this company, and barely made the age requirement, so I was able to retire. My retirement would have only been $67.00 a month, or I had the option to take a lump sum. I took the lump sum and rolled it over. So, obviously I'm not eligible for unemployment. I was able to find a temporary, part time position during the holidays. I need to work, but I haven't found anything--so, I'm doing the full-time homemaking thing--which I actually love, but I really need a full time paying job.

[slamjet]

Yea, I worked for woman's wages... I was Mr. Mom for over six years. Great job satisfaction but the pay sucks.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

Keep in mind that the IWF has its own agenda, and Ms. Lukas's conclusions are colored by it. I can find you studies that show different conclusions from sources with other biases.

The Gender Pay Gap by Industry - NYTimes.com

Equal Pay and the Gender Gap: Men Still Outearn Women - TIME This one includes stats controlled for a number of factors, such as experience or whether they belong to a union (!).

This recession, coupled with higher university enrollment among women, will lead to some interesting data in the decade to come. There are a lot of sociological factors at work in this arena.

Did you actually look at the links you posted? The first one lists only median salaries between men and women by industry, which doesn't even begin to tell the real story, and the second one, like the OP I posted, accounted for various situations and factors that impact salaries by gender. Listing median incomes by tax returns (which is where feminists come up with their 77% figure) doesn't account for the mothers who stay at home or have only a part time job to supplement the family income. What's glaringly absent in all this is proof that discrimination exists between equally qualified men and women who apply for higher wage jobs or promotions within their jobs.

What's behind all this is the feminist ideology that takes issue with gender roles, particularly the role of the man as the usual bread winner. All throughout the 90's, women have been told that to stay home and raise a family is demeaning and that they ought to pursue a career instead. It is, of course, a hideous lie because being the mother of children and making a home is noble, laudible, back breaking work no less than than the work of any man. The remuneration of home making doesn't translate into monetary salaries, but the rewards are there just the same.

[havejoy]

I worked in the nuclear industry for almost 25 years and I can tell you there is a disparity in that industry in wages male vs. female. Some of it is because males were more easily promoted. Most was because wages were based on 'soft issues' and not actual job performance.

There were women written up for taking too much time off from work during the year even though the only time they took was for the birth of their child. Policy was that you couldn't be promoted if you'd been written up in the last 12 months.

I saw men get positive letters in their files when they did something good that a woman had also done but was ignored for it.

If anyone really thinks wage disparity or any kind of discrimination is a thing of the past it's because they have their head so far up their behind that their eyes are covered.

[Backroads]

What's behind all this is the feminist ideology that takes issue with gender roles, particularly the role of the man as the usual bread winner. All throughout the 90's, women have been told that to stay home and raise a family is demeaning and that they ought to pursue a career instead. It is, of course, a hideous lie because being the mother of children and making a home is noble, laudible, back breaking work no less than than the work of any man. The remuneration of home making doesn't translate into monetary salaries, but the rewards are there just the same.

Yet I also think the 90s is when many women said feminism included the right to pick and began to defend the right to say home, which I found neat. Radical feminism intrigues me, tis the branch I most agree with.

Interestingly enough, there were some desired motions for pay or other similar benefits to be given to those stay-at-home moms, probably in response to the "Hey, I want the right to raise my family!" cries. Didn't make many of them happy.