Skip to comments.Alleged Gender Pay Discrepancy Based On Life Choices - Women are earning less by choice
Posted on 10/04/2012 5:20:52 AM PDT by MichCapCon
I have become increasingly disturbed by the so-called "feminist" arguments made by some regarding the "War on Women."
It seems we've reached an age of political discourse where women are receiving the deference of yester-year, but not the respect of a rigorous examination of their argument which, if true, would be grievous.
In this piece, I examine the feminist claim that women are not paid as much as men for equal work.
Let's take a contentious talking-point: The Lilly Ledbetter Act.
Proponents argue that it addresses the alleged 77 cents to a dollar discrepancy between male and female pay but this is not what the act says it does. The law extends the statute of limitations for submitting an equal-pay lawsuit. So let's say you were a woman and 20 years after the receipt of your first paycheck, you felt that it had been a diminished figure due to sexism. It is little wonder that some oppose this act. Even I can objectively stand back and argue that anything that took that long to determine ought to be examined for motive.
But let's return to the 77 cents allegation, since it continues to be made regardless of the law's applicability. There ought to be some examination of market conditions regarding pay before slamming on the SEXIST RED ALERT button. How do factors such as part-time work, employment gaps, and non-decaying skill fields account for pay gaps, just to name a few?
When these conditions are taken into account, the pay for white women looks to be closer to 87 cents to each dollar earned by white men, at least, according to economist Diana Furchgott-Roth's study "Women's Figures." I specify race in this discussion because according to the Current Population Survey, among African-American women to African-American men, the gender disparity actually favors women by 4.7 percent. According to these feminist arguments, that would imply that the absence of a pay gap between African-Americans means black women are less likely to receive sexist treatment than white women, which seems presumptuous. Either way, assuming sexism is the cause ignores crucial data.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there is a discrepancy. These feminists argue that it exists because of sexism without addressing the "equal work" part of the argument. But look at the careers women choose compared to men. They are generally less dangerous, lower-paying, require less travel, are more frequently part-time and more likely to be volunteer work, according to the 2011 White House report "Women in America." Not only is their work "not equal" on average, which closes the alleged gap significantly, but it seems to be a conscious choice.
To hammer home the point, in 2012 the Census Bureau released data demonstrating that single women's pay has outstripped their male counterpart's pay in metropolitan areas of the country. So does sexism only start after women wed?
The truth is, when the stork brings little messy, crying incentives to shackle earning potential into women's lives, women have increasingly chosen a balance between work and childcare since the passage of the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Gary Becker even got a Nobel for saying as much.
This is healthy and normal, at least according to the American Psychological Association's 2010 study of mothers' happiness, which found that the happiest women were those who worked part-time.
Further evidence that the pay gap is not sexist? Independent female business owners make less than male business owners, according to a Rochester Institute of Technology survey of business owners.
Before we start calling these employers sexist, it might be useful to remind ourselves that some women employ themselves.
Women are choosing to earn less in favor of other considerations. Let's not blame men for that, and let's certainly not shanghai legislators into bad policy decisions based on the tired rhetoric of a world that no longer exists. If people are to call themselves "feminists," they must first acknowledge that women are capable of being "the captains of their fate."
Most FAMILY women work because they have to work...and most don’t want a lot of responsibility added to their agenda.
I worked for a company that figured out a way to bring the women who were entering the computer repair business in line with the men who had ten years experience. They stopped giving the men raises.
Having been on ‘both sides of the fence’, as an owner, I have often responded to the females/minorities earn (fill in blank) less than males argument, “IF, as an owner, I just hired a male for the sake of NOT hiring a female/minority, I would be a damned fool for not hiring the female/minority and just putting the monetary difference in my pocket”.
Of course, I was raised in a period that when the wife was pregnant one was looking for overtime, not wanting time off to spend in the waiting/delivery room - like I have told laborers in the past, “Son, unless you are delivering that baby, you had better be asking me about working next weekend”, not about getting time off....of course when the subject ‘Paid vacations’ came up, I would just say “pick any day you want, call it your vacation and make sure you show up for work that day, and we can call it a paid vacation day”. Same answer for paid holidays.
Admittedly the system may not have been ‘better’, but it worked, and the work ethics seemed better, but guess you can go all the way back to Mayflower and Plymouth Rock and the first ‘young people’ that showed up for work were chastised “Back in my day those guys would have really had to work, not just stand around”.
I proved this in my 50 page Senior Thesis at Claremont McKenna College.....
..... in 1984.
We’ll always be fighting this B.S.
I believe it said that women are taking their jobs because they will work for less wages. Think about that and what you see in the workplace.
This is one of the vanishingly small instances of real discrimination that I can think of in recent years: a NJ bank pays the family health insurance for male employees but only individual coverage for female employees because the president thinks it’s a man’s job to support his family.
Now if the woman is a widow or has a disabled or abandoning husband, and is the only support of her family?
The bank does seem to be a stable business, not overreaching as too many have done lately, and a good place to work with employees who have been there decades, full pensions for retirees. Old-fashioned, patriarchal, take-care-of-your employees kind of boss. A lot to be said for that.
Still it’s hard to believe the bank can get away with its discriminatory insurance policy.
This how how the commie pinko liberal fellow travelers will respond:
“So what if they made choices? What does that have to do with anything? We all make choices. The Government must forces businesses to accommodate those choices, and STILL bring women’s pay in line with men’s.”
You just can’t debate with this sort of irrationality.