The Gender Wage Gap Lie

cancel2 2022

Canceled
You know that “women make 77 cents to every man’s dollar” line you’ve heard a hundred times? It’s not true.

By Hanna Rosin|Posted Friday, Aug. 30, 2013, at 12:49 PM

130830_DX_WageGapStats.jpg.CROP.rectangle3-large.jpg


When men and women do the same job, the wage gap is less than the widely report "77 cents on the dollar."

Photo by Siri Stafford/Lifesize/Thinkstock



How many times have you heard that “women are paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men”? Barack Obama said it during his last campaign. Women’s groups say it every April 9, which is Equal Pay Day. In preparation for Labor Day, a group protesting outside Macy’s this week repeated it, too, holding up signs and sending out press releases saying “women make $.77 to every dollar men make on the job.” I’ve heard the line enough times that I feel the need to set the record straight: It’s not true.

The official Bureau of Labor Department statistics show that the median earnings of full-time female workers is 77 percent of the median earnings of full-time male workers. But that is very different than “77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men.” The latter gives the impression that a man and a woman standing next to each other doing the same job for the same number of hours get paid different salaries. That’s not at all the case. “Full time” officially means 35 hours, but men work more hours than women. That’s the first problem: We could be comparing men working 40 hours to women working 35.

How to get a more accurate measure? First, instead of comparing annual wages, start by comparing average weekly wages. This is considered a slightly more accurate measure because it eliminates variables like time off during the year or annual bonuses (and yes, men get higher bonuses, but let’s shelve that for a moment in our quest for a pure wage gap number). By this measure, women earn 81 percent of what men earn, although it varies widely by race. African-American women, for example, earn 94 percent of what African-American men earn in a typical week. Then, when you restrict the comparison to men and women working 40 hours a week, the gap narrows to 87 percent.

But we’re still not close to measuring women “doing the same work as men.” For that, we’d have to adjust for many other factors that go into determining salary. Economists Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn did that in a recent paper, “The Gender Pay Gap.”.”They first accounted for education and experience. That didn’t shift the gap very much, because women generally have at least as much and usually more education than men, and since the 1980s they have been gaining the experience. The fact that men are more likely to be in unions and have their salaries protected accounts for about 4 percent of the gap. The big differences are in occupation and industry. Women congregate in different professions than men do, and the largely male professions tend to be higher-paying. If you account for those differences, and then compare a woman and a man doing the same job, the pay gap narrows to 91 percent. So, you could accurately say in that Obama ad that, “women get paid 91 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men.”

The point here is not that there is no wage inequality. But by focusing our outrage into a tidy, misleading statistic we’ve missed the actual challenges. It would in fact be much simpler if the problem were rank sexism and all you had to do was enlighten the nation’s bosses or throw the Equal Pay Act at them. But the 91 percent statistic suggests a much more complicated set of problems. Is it that women are choosing lower-paying professions or that our country values women’s professions less? And why do women work fewer hours? Is this all discrimination or, as economist Claudia Goldin likes to say, also a result of “rational choices” women make about how they want to conduct their lives.

Goldin and Lawrence Katz have done about as close to an apples-to-apples comparison of men’s and women’s wages as exists. (They talk about it here in a Freakonomics discussion.) They tracked male and female MBAs graduating from the University of Chicago from 1990 to 2006. First they controlled for previous job experience, GPA, chosen profession, business-school course and job title. Right out of school, they found only a tiny differential in salary between men and women, which might be because of a little bit of lingering discrimination or because women are worse at negotiating starting salaries. But 10 to 15 years later, the gap widens to 40 percent, almost all of which is due to career interruptions and fewer hours. The gap is even wider for women business school graduates who marry very high earners. (Note: Never marry a rich man).

If this midcareer gap is due to discrimination, it’s much deeper than “male boss looks at female hire and decides she is worth less, and then pats her male colleague on the back and slips him a bonus.” It’s the deeper, more systemic discrimination of inadequate family-leave policies and childcare options, of women defaulting to being the caretakers. Or of women deciding that are suited to be nurses and teachers but not doctors. And in that more complicated discussion, you have to leave room at least for the option of choice—that women just don’t want to work the same way men do.

http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl..._that_women_make_77_cents_to_every_man_s.html
 
Don't worry, the Sob Sisters will be here to debunk these "lies". I knew there was no gender wage gap 20 years ago, but the grievance industry needs to peddle these lies to keep in business. It beats getting a job.
 
No, I suspect the Darlak is fag-hagging on Fire Island today drinking Sangria and smoking blunts. She'll call you a rape apologist on Tuesday.
 
Tom is a sexist pig. Sorry to insult pigs .Why would any feminist comment on a thread like this of his? I wouldn't have even posted this, but you all are so clueless I figured you needed it spelled out.
 
Why would you want to be a filthy feminist?

Tom seems to be a lot, but sexist? That's off the deep end.
 
Tom is a sexist pig. Sorry to insult pigs .Why would any feminist comment on a thread like this of his? I wouldn't have even posted this, but you all are so clueless I figured you needed it spelled out.

Too bad you didn't bring any facts to refute the OP, cheerleader. Got any?
 
Tom is a sexist pig. Sorry to insult pigs .Why would any feminist comment on a thread like this of his? I wouldn't have even posted this, but you all are so clueless I figured you needed it spelled out.

I post an article in Slate written by a woman on the gender wage gap and rather than argue intelligently you just resort to ad hom.
 
I post an article in Slate written by a woman on the gender wage gap and rather than argue intelligently you just resort to ad hom.

It's all she's capable of.

I noticed she doesn't take issue with her fellow lib in the matter of the alleged gang rape of a drunken woman.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?54726-OK-to-fuck-drunk-chicks
 
Tom is a sexist pig. Sorry to insult pigs .Why would any feminist comment on a thread like this of his? I wouldn't have even posted this, but you all are so clueless I figured you needed it spelled out.

What a fact filled rebuttal. I don't think anyone will recover from that beat down

:facepalm:
 
I've thought for a long time that the 'gender gap' is over stated. In our society, where both spouses tend to be close in education, women make different choices than men. Not all, certainly not, but most. Certainly we can point out to societal differences, even amongst women over 40, who were raised by a mother with a college education, that mother was likely home with her. While the daughter may have worked into her 30's, unlike her mother, when kids come or parents become ill, many choose to be home to help, rather than 'hire' someone else. They take 'breaks' in employment, that men for the most part do not. They pay an economic price for those choices.

I'm certain that there are women that consider their purpose to get as far as they can in a field, I know one and she's rethinking it. She's 34. She's my niece and there's no doubt that we are proud of her. She earned a BA, then an MBA from Northwestern, then her law degree by age 28. She interned in a Wall St. firm and was offered a position, once boards were passed. She did, started over $200k and is still working 90 hours per week avg. Her husband is an MD, they thought they didn't want children. Are beginning to rethink that, but still unsure. What they do know is they don't have enough 'time.'

I've friends that are teachers, lawyers, a judge, and a doctor. All have taken breaks in employment for children, beyond 6 weeks. Actually the least amount of time was 4 years. Many stayed home for 12 years. None of them would hesitate to stay home to care for child, spouse, or parent. As they've aged, so have their parents. Their kids are finishing college or graduated. Grandchildren are looming or here. They don't want to work the hours they did. The doctor and judge have both retired, in their early 50's. One to care for a parent, the other to be around for grandchildren. Yes, their husbands make very good money and are still working. Of the teachers, 6 retired by 55. They loved teaching, they just wanted more time to be with family and pursue other interests. These are not 'boring' women, not at all. Active in professional and community organizations. They just realized that their hearts weren't as focused on careers at a certain point in time. The job, was a job. They loved doing it, but not as much as the people in their lives.

Those at the 'top of their professions' don't often have the time available to do other things that matter to them. They don't want to be less than best at their jobs. Choices must be made, or they face BAC's signature problem of cognitive dissonance. ;)

Men for the most part, just haven't been faced with making those types of choices, nor do their hearts lead them there. Why? Likely they have a spouse that will make that choice.

Thus the difference in pay over a lifetime.
 
I've thought for a long time that the 'gender gap' is over stated. In our society, where both spouses tend to be close in education, women make different choices than men. Not all, certainly not, but most. Certainly we can point out to societal differences, even amongst women over 40, who were raised by a mother with a college education, that mother was likely home with her. While the daughter may have worked into her 30's, unlike her mother, when kids come or parents become ill, many choose to be home to help, rather than 'hire' someone else. They take 'breaks' in employment, that men for the most part do not. They pay an economic price for those choices.

I'm certain that there are women that consider their purpose to get as far as they can in a field, I know one and she's rethinking it. She's 34. She's my niece and there's no doubt that we are proud of her. She earned a BA, then an MBA from Northwestern, then her law degree by age 28. She interned in a Wall St. firm and was offered a position, once boards were passed. She did, started over $200k and is still working 90 hours per week avg. Her husband is an MD, they thought they didn't want children. Are beginning to rethink that, but still unsure. What they do know is they don't have enough 'time.'

I've friends that are teachers, lawyers, a judge, and a doctor. All have taken breaks in employment for children, beyond 6 weeks. Actually the least amount of time was 4 years. Many stayed home for 12 years. None of them would hesitate to stay home to care for child, spouse, or parent. As they've aged, so have their parents. Their kids are finishing college or graduated. Grandchildren are looming or here. They don't want to work the hours they did. The doctor and judge have both retired, in their early 50's. One to care for a parent, the other to be around for grandchildren. Yes, their husbands make very good money and are still working. Of the teachers, 6 retired by 55. They loved teaching, they just wanted more time to be with family and pursue other interests. These are not 'boring' women, not at all. Active in professional and community organizations. They just realized that their hearts weren't as focused on careers at a certain point in time. The job, was a job. They loved doing it, but not as much as the people in their lives.

Those at the 'top of their professions' don't often have the time available to do other things that matter to them. They don't want to be less than best at their jobs. Choices must be made, or they face BAC's signature problem of cognitive dissonance. ;)

Men for the most part, just haven't been faced with making those types of choices, nor do their hearts lead them there. Why? Likely they have a spouse that will make that choice.

Thus the difference in pay over a lifetime.

Apparently I am a sexist pig for even posting the article, according to Tekky anyway.
 
Back
Top