Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Steve Chapman :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Truth About the Pay Gap
by Steve Chapman
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


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.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Steve Chapman is a columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
No pay gap? But, but, but,..
That's right, there is no pay gap. I can not wait to read what the economically impaired leftists have to say in response to Mr. Chapman's column. I am sure they will spout their usual "distortion of the facts, lies, Chapman is a sexist, etc. routine. Leftists never change.

More pig crap from the right
"As early as one year after graduation, a pay gap is found between women and men who had the same college major."

And, "Female students cannot simply choose a major that will allow them to avoid the pay gap."

Those quotes are from the same report this doofus is using to say there is no pay gap. While he is busily comparing apples to oranges, the truth is women are still being crapped on by this society.

Equal pay for equal work is a mantra I've lived by for decades. Unfortunately, unless you work for the government or the military, women will receive less pay than men for the same work. Only a pseudo christian with the attitude of "keep them bare foot and pregnant" would say it doesn't exist.

If some of you fools would actually read the source document... But then again, that would require more than a knee jerk response and "critical thought" is a non sequitur for the "christian" conservative.

My Two Cent's Worth
Be advised that this is all coming from mh personal experience, so it may not apply to anyone else's situation.

When my mother began teaching, in 1961, I am fairly certain that a first year male teacher made more than a first year female teacher. Today, my wife is a teacher. Given equivalent years of experience and education, a male teacher and a female teacher make...exactly the same salary.

I worked for many years in a union job. The pay scale for men and women was...exactly the same.

I now work in an engineering job. I'm offered a salary based on my experience and education. The company puts me in a pay grade with a salary range, and every year I get some sort of raise, usually small. I have, in fact, maxed out in my pay grade, and cannot progress to the next grade because I don't have an engineering degree. Any woman engineer fresh out of college will automatically be in a higher pay grade than me. In a few years, she'll probably progress to the top of that grade and perhaps be bumped into a higher grade. She will no doubt be making more money than me, even if we are doing the same job.

I don't know what would happen to a male and female engineer fresh out of college, assigned to the same type of work, in the same company. Maybe the man will make more. Maybe not. I don't know about company executives either, but my company sure is fond of putting women in high positions. But I do know that a male and female carpenter with equivalent experience make exactly the same. I don't see a pay gap. Sorry.

In response to Bleeding Heart Liberal
"After accounting for all factors known to affect wages, about one-quarter of the gap remains unexplained and may be attributed to discrimination"

Read the report. One quarter of 20% equals 5%. That's five cents on the dollar which MAY, but not MUST, be attributable to discrimination.

Doesn't sound like much 'crapping on' going on. Your hyperbole is better saved for a PROVEN instance of discrimination, like this one:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070428/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_crackdown_on_women

By the way, save the 'pseudo-Christian' posturing. Only shows your bias.

Chapman & The Death-Wish
As a good solid right-winger, I believe Steve Chapman is leading us into one of those traps into which we conservatives love to fall. We Republicans have a significant vote gap when it comes to women, especially young professionals who, like it not, are a big part of the future of our Party. If I were a woman and read Chapman's article, I'd be left with yet another reason NOT to vote Republican. I think we need to come up with better essays than this one. This approach looks too much like a journalistic death-wish. I may write more about this tomorrow. Anyway, come visit me at my site. I believe in talking sense about what conservatives must do, not in reciting the slogans of yesteryear, which the last election tells us may no longer work. I'm sure Chapman is a good fellow, but he needs to rethink what he's pushing in his piece. The Democrats he cites are saying at least, "We care about women." We don't want to counter with, "We don't."

steve

Same old, same old
The socialist pukes have brought up the phony pay discrimination boogey-man again.

The word apparently came down from George Soros to get the women riled up again so they'll vote for whatever Socialist-Democrat the DNC annoints.

TRUE STORY: My ex-girl friend was a sales manager for an international company that manufactured and sold high-tech mass spectrometers world-wide. She complained that a co-worker who had the same job title and duties (just a different region) was getting paid more money than she got paid (a LOT more).

I told her she should sue the company. At first. When I learned more of the story, it turned out that her co-worker was an engineer and had been with the company a lot longer. I told her to forget about it, she had no case.

My girl friend had maybe a year of college and admitted she couldn't discuss many of the technical aspects of the equipment she sold.

She was very bright but had, for years, bought into the "women don't get paid what men get paid" socialist propaganda. She never sued, of course, because she knew I was right.

And Another Thing
Why precisely do women in medical school go into low-paying jobs, pediatrics, family medicine, and the like? Why do a much greater percentage of males go into the big-ticket specialties, such as surgery? Yes, it is okay to do a little digging. We might find out the reasons for those "factors" that lead to a pay differential which irritates many women (voters) and causes them to vote against Republicans with such regularity. "All is well" is not a winning political strategy, unless perhaps you're Calvin Coolidge.

My own experience with women doctors (three, admittedly) is that they make better doctors than males. My argument with Chapman's article is that it's shallow. It's another of those, "Look at it this way, and all is well." More women vote than men. Most women nationally vote Democratic. Hello!

Perception and Reality
True to my word, I wrote a piece critical of Chapman's. It's called "Perception and Reality," and you can read it by clicking on my name above. Comments welcome. Thanks. Have a great Sunday.

Steve
You wrote: "The Democrats he cites are saying at least, "We care about women." We don't want to counter with, "We don't."

That's correct. But how we show we care is where the difference lies. The way the libs want to care is to layer more bureaucratic control over the employment process, which should be private. They may say they care but they lie. Look at welfare programs. Is there any way any intelligent person could look at the end result of those programs and believe the liberal do-gooders give a rodent's backside about the poor?

It is virtually impossible to find discrimination in pay when all the factors are analyzed. If for no other reason than most employers are well aware of the fact that legions of liberals are ready, willing and able to sue at the drop of a hat. There have been numerous lawsuits lost by the so-called equal pay advocates because judges and juries can't find discrimination. So, by spreading more propoganda, the libs are now seeking a means to insert more government control into the private sector.

I, however, know why women get paid what they get paid. If it's less than men, so be it. The reason they get paid what they get paid is that we tell them what we are willing to pay them and they show up for work every day to work for that amount of money. If they think they are worth more, they should find someone who is willing to pay them more. Employers have realized a long time ago that to attract and keep the best, you must be willing to pay accordingly. Employees need to be willing to shop themselves around for their best deal. If they are making as much as they can for their skill set and their contribution to the company, government interference will only make their and the company's lot in life worse, not better.

To BHL
You don't have much experience to make any say. I worked for a large corporation and I can tell you that two people working the same position received the same pay. In fact, the biggest problem was advancing into a new position that paid higher wages if you were a white male. It seems that females and minorities received preferences for open positions. Hey that's just like university admissions isn't it. Those of you who haven't seen this either haven't worked for a large corporation or haven't looked.

To Steve;

I would propose the opposite. Women who have degrees that go into lower wage activities than their male counterparts do so because they are ALREADY of a "liberal" persuasion and think they are "helping" the country/world through their altruism. This is why the vote Democratic and it has nothing to do with reality or facts. These same women will later complain that they got the short end of the stick when they made the choice themselves. So to me the question is “How do you educate these people BEFORE they make the choices that cause them to make less money, or at least, so that they don’t blame someone else for their choices.

And BTW, I have a female doctor.

We should be more honest about the
differences: you want the same pay - enter the same fields, work the same hours and ALWAYS put your job FIRST and be willing to FIGHT for it day and night with anyone and everyone who LOOKS like they might 'take the food out of the mouth of your babies.'

Most men would do the above willingly and eagerly. They have the testosterone to help them.

Most women would not. Maybe, COULD not. That they are getting closer and closer is neither good nor bad but worrisome I think.

I side with Sommers on the equation. And think that maybe we should 'celebrate the differences.' The left loves differences, don't they?

In the late 50's
I worked for an agency that automatically paid the men more and clearly stated that it was because they were responsible for families.
(they never accounted for why single men also made more than the women). Today, they wouldn't dare do that. My husband is retired now, but twice was passed over for a woman who was not qualified and found himself having to do her work. (oh and twice it was a "two-fer", a black woman.)

Facts usually get in the way
As usual with many groups and especially the politicians facts seem to either get in the way or are totally ignored. So what is new!

Women v. Mommies
This continuing habit of jamming all females into one box and treating us as if we are a monolithic block is the reason we never make any progress.

In my firm, women who work like men get paid like men. Women who work like Mothers get paid the Womens' wage. When I started working mens' wages were referred to as The Family Wage, and it was tacitly assumed that the money Girls earned was "pin money" to provide goodies in addition to the full support of a man. Today my experience is that the Family Wage is paid to those who work like the men of the 1950s and the "pin money" wage is paid to those that don't. So lumping these two pay scales into one and crying that the average means Girls are getting the short end of the stick is specious.

However, it does no harm to point out that we feminists had a lot to do with the current procedure that the so called Family Wage was paid only to men; we who put in the work of men get the Family Wage now because it is understood that we are paying our own way.

As for other variants in wages a lot of it has to do with lifestyle choices. I have several friends who are pursuing vocations in art and music that pay nothing but psychic satisfaction and they knew it going in; they are happy with what they earn. Other friends who teach in private schools, who work as LPNs or who clerk in Wal-Mart are happy with what they earn because they like their work. Several men friends of mine are poor as a political statement; they are doing the Carbon Footprint thing and are happy. Others just don't want to work hard and they chose jobs that don't requre much in the way of effort. Among my sisters are a landscape gardener's apprentice, a former nurse turned cosmetition (can't spell it), a full time mother, and a retired insurance broker. The landscape apprentice gave up a government job to take on this new career, knowing she would make a pittance until she learned her craft. She will soon be 50. She's willing to take the chance.

So the whole thing about "equal pay" is a red herring in most cases now; when everyone can choose among lifestyle options, the only ones whining are pretty much the ones that don't like the idea that actions have consequences. And the ones who thought they could have a full time high-powered career AND be full time wives and mothers, and they don't like it that they can't ride two horses in two races and not win them both.

Opportunity is the key
Government force is rarely the answer to solving anything, even if it is true that a woman in the same position earns less than a man. That was always one of the great things about America. If you didn't like how you were being treated, or paid, you had the opportunity to go work someplace else, or even better, start your own business.

Adding more government rules and mandates only serve to limit our opportunities to make choices for ourselves.

Steve's analysis
I think, at this point in my life, I agree with Steve's assessment of the situation that this article discusses. I will go to his site for more insight.

He knows, I believe, like Tallil2long, Vic, and Well, now ...that Chapman's article is correct. But, we can't say that because it isn't politically correct, and in the end that will cost our point of view votes.

I would have attacked his perspective before this past September on grounds of the valor of one's principles , virtue and truth, and now have got to admit that P.C. has trumped these concepts of character.

The character of our society is being formed via the "main stream" media by some force and purpose that I don't understand and can't identify with, but has won by the power of their tactics, not their ideas, truth, or benefit to society.

Does this mean that in the end...I too...have lost my soul?

Steve
Once women enter the workforce, more and more of them vote for the individual that will decrease taxes. There's nothing like getting that first paycheck and trying to figure out who that dude named FISA is that just stole all your money.

TYPOS
FICA

A small point
If the Dems who agree that women are in fact being put upon get into a position to dooooe something about it, they will craft legislation to address the 'problem'. The result of this solution will be to shut women out of the workplace as employers will not be willing to face a situation where the government further intrudes on the efficient operation of their businesses and they are subject legal action etc.

Unintended consequences yet again.

This ain't going to sit well....but
One factor that I'm sure won't be noted in the research is the fact that women are more whiny and complain more about their job assignments.

In general they have a more 'it's all about me' attitude when it comes to work. They don't handle employer requests for longer hours and tougher, more demanding job assignments as well as men!

In a nutshell, they are generally much less dedicated to their job, more likely to quit an employer, and more likely to job-hop!

Sometime the truth hurts, especially when it goes against the PC cause de jure!
So...flame away! I expect it!

Correcton...
Meant to say:

Sometime the truth hurts, especially when it goes against the PC cause du jour!

If the allegation were true
How would a man ever find a job if women would actually do the same job for less? Any CEO worth his salt would simply hire only women, cut his payroll costs substantially, and deliver greater shareholder value than his competitors that have "overpriced" men on their payrolls. Think about it, the assertion simply cannot be true in a capitalist economy. No rational company would voluntarily forego lower labor costs.

The market drives all prices, including wages. And the market's response wouldn't be to increase the wages of women, it would be to lower men's wages until wages equalized or until every woman working for less was fully employed and the only alternative left was to hire more expensive men.

Differing results are not proof of discrimination, the Left's whining notwithstanding. When liberals talk about equality, they mean equality of results. When conservatives talk about equality, they mean equality of opportunity.


To Steve: a Random Comment
I was interested to read your post that based on your experience, women have made better doctors than men. I can't comment on that as I haven't had a lot of women doctors, by chance, but can tell you that in twenty years of having my husband on intensive care units, he and I agree that, consistently, the best intensive care nurses have been gay men.

Scottie
Your post of 9:57 am was an excellent analysis!

Feminist whining
How come we hear about the pay gap every few months, but almost never hear about other gaps? Feminists spend thousand of hours and millions of dollars mining for anything that could be construed as being unfair to women. When they do find something (real or imagined) the MSM is eager to take the info at face value and print it.

If feminists actually cared the slightest bid about equality, they would be complaining about the other gaps also.

Occupational fatality gap – the BLS reports year after year that 93% of occupational fatalities are male, and 7% female.

Suicide gap – 85% of suicides are male. Twenty five thousand males take their own lives each year and no one seems to care.

Military casualty gap – 98% of military casualties are male. The percentage is consistent for wounds and fatalities. This is an outrage considering the fact we live in the era of sexual equality.

Family court gap – how come the female almost always gets the two primary assets of a marriage (the house and the children)? Take a minute and think about the married couples you know – are all the mothers the better parent? Of the married couples I know, the father is frequently the better parent. I protest the fact that courts almost always give custody to the mother. The family court system has become so biased in favor of females, that divorce is now a win/win situation for the wife. She gets the kids, the house, child support, and no longer needs to compromise or share with another adult. It is no wonder that females initiate 75% of divorces.

Did you know that many states will not even allow a father file a wrongful death suite if one of his children is killed in an accident? The law says that the mother has standing, not the father!

Criminal law gap – the DOJ consistently reports that women generally get shorter prison sentence than men for the same crime.

Consumption gap – I have not been able to find a study on this… but most thinking people will recognize that women consume the vast majority of family income. Of all the married couples I know, the wife wanted the bigger house than the husband wanted, and she got it. The wife wanted new furniture and got it. When the family gets a new car, the wife drives it. When you go to the mall during a weekday, it is filled with female shoppers. The law clearly indicates that women have greater rights to children – so spending on children should be credited to the mother’s consumption.

Medical spending gap – women consume 2/3 of all medical visits (not counting pregnancy related visits). Take a look at the National Institute for Health website and you will see that the vast majority sex specific trials and research goes to female related health issues (use breast and prostate cancer as your search criteria because the incidence rates are similar).

The list goes on and on.

I would be happy of one of two things happened: 1) Feminists stopped whining and propagandizing; 2) we actually had sexual equality.

Steve, Mr Right
Good sensible stuff. We need to present our principles in a more feelings friendly way. Feelings are often a poor basis for action, but this does not stop many people from doing it. Careful education is a key, feelings must be dealt with. Only education will counter the powerful DEM mantra of WE Care, They Don't.

Time to Cut & Run - From PC...
> Steve writes: We Republicans have a
> significant vote gap when it comes to women

Fine. Lets just write them off.

I actually am quite serious about this -- instead of abandoning our ideals to pander to folk who won't support us anyway (Bush has grown government more than LBJ), why don't we just support our own ideals and say to h*** with the feminists?

> The Democrats he cites are saying at
> least, "We care about women." We don't
> want to counter with, "We don't."

How about "we care about men"? There are a LOT of middle aged women who would support us if we could promise them that (a) their boys won't get shot in some stupid gang thing or (b) go to jail for drugs and (c) marry a nice young lady and give them grandchildren.

No one will dare say this, let alone poll this, but there are a lot of Democrat Black Women who would vote Republican in a heartbeat if we could just promise the first thing. Have a candid conversation with any Black mother if you doubt this...

Have you been listening to what Bill Cosby has been saying recently? And when Cosby is to the right of the GOP, well, we have been tacking left...

typo
it should have been "*will* marry a nice young lady and give them grandchildren."

The fact that their boys aren't married is a growing political timebomb amongst the saner female baby-boomers. And while they want their daughters to be feminists, they also want them to have a wedding...

Male doctors can't AFFORD to do it....
Steve writes: Why do a much greater percentage of males go into the big-ticket specialties, such as surgery?

Because they have to support their families, while the female doctors are either (a) married to someone with a better salary or (b) single?

Were we to reorder society with the expectation that women, not men, were expected to be the primary supporters of families (and that would mean the end of child support payments from men but single mothers being charged them), you would likely find that men intentionally assumed the lower paying jobs because they were doing them for the pleasure.


>>My own experience with women doctors (three, admittedly) is that they make better doctors than males.

Could it be, perhaps, that that not having to have the primary breadwinner role leads one to be able to practice medicine in a different manner? How many of those female doctors was the primary breadwinner for a spouse and children? Enough said?

a female non-feminist POV
Photogbill at 9:33 AM:
"One factor that I'm sure won't be noted in the research is the fact that women are more whiny and complain more about their job assignments... In general they have a more 'it's all about me' attitude when it comes to work. They don't handle employer requests for longer hours and tougher, more demanding job assignments as well as men! ...In a nutshell, they are generally much less dedicated to their job, more likely to quit an employer, and more likely to job-hop!"


Dear photogbill,
I worked at one accounting job for almost 14 years. Left on good terms to switch to another company because it had much better benefits and even more job satisfaction (liked the first one too though). Have been here more than five years and hope to be working here till I retire.

Being the business manager of this small company, and having a four year accounting degree, I handle finances, oversee maintenance and repairs/contract work, landlord issues, payroll, legal issues and any other business issue which comes up. I also routinely cover, without comment or complaint, for my several subordinates who need to be out unexpectedly for one reason or another. We just had to let one part time bookkeeper go for budget reasons and I have been covering all her work for three months now, again with no comment or complaint to my employer. I routinely work overtime, and am salaried so I don't get paid for that.

Am I complaining? No, I LOVE my job, am well paid and well satisfied and if I won the lottery (I don't play though) I'd do it for free.

Oh:
This non-feminist woman doesn't expect an apology. She expects you to act like an adult and shun your stereotypes next time you feel like ranting at half the population.


Handy at 1:17 AM:
"You probably just wished you could do as little for as much as your female counterparts were earning. Women in the workforce are a waste of good time cards."

Wow. Just...Wow. Glad my excellent male boss (best one I ever had) doesn't think like you.




Don't expect
the candidates to address this issue in anything other than vague sound bites. It's far to complicated to talk about otherwise.

Pay Gap
If women did the same work as men for 23% less, then men would rarely ever get hired.

Missed point
John Stosel said it best "If women make so much less than men, then as an employer, I'd hire women, underbid the competion, and put the competition out of business."

If you feel that you're under paid, vote with your feet. Leave! Find another job.

Moreover, rule one for employment "Don't nest." Keep personal items at home and you're more likely to leave and seek a higher paying work.

Moreover, the higher your income, the higher the cost to keep you, the more likely you'll be downsized. And what about middle-age men who are over qualified and cannot find work?

Instead of worrying about a pay difference between Men and Women in a Free Market, our politicians should figure out what taxes really need to be taken and stop pork barreling to buy votes.

I'm not against taxes, but taxes should be used for the right things and not Alaskian bridges to nowhere.

30% of my pay is taken before I see a dollar. Then, we have sales tax, property tax, telephone taxes, luxury taxes, cigarette tax, gasoline taxes, ... And still we have a deficent and still we don't pay enough.





Bleeding Heart Liberal is even ...
... less believable than usual. It either can't or doesn't read, can't or doesn't comprehend, or is blatantly dishonest. A main point was that the vast majority of college-educated women do not start in the same types of higer-valued jobs that college-educated men start with. People with less education have different options. For example, both men and women may go into retail sales and may each start out near minimum wage. But jobs that require physical strength and endurance (many construction jobs, for instance)may pay more but are less attractive to women. But when they enter those fields they pay is the same.

If you are interested in learning more about why women are more likely to desire specific activities and why they tend to be MUCH more likely to stay home with their children I would recommend reading "Taking Sex Differences Seriously" by Steven Rhoads.

Violet
Those of us who actually hire and fire know there are many women like you. Likewise, we know that jobs and salary are in general less important to a woman than a man. Men are more pushy when it comes to salary, and more willing to quit and move. These are powerful forces at work in the equal pay situation. Your experience is anecdotal, true, but representative. In the final analysis, i don't know a single manager who would pay a man more, when he could get a better employee, sex be hanged, for less. This reality point, ignored by the PC feelings types, has been often made, a couple times on this thread. The victim class is lost in futile search for fault outside themself.

TURDS
Political correctness is an assemblage of people who think they can pick up a turd by the clean end.

Why are women unemployed?
If there were really a wage gap in favor of men, would not all businesses hire women first to reduce their payroll?

We are told how evil businesses are and only out to save a buck. Why do they hire men if they have to pay them more?

Feminism's coattails
violet,

I understand that you feel as though you personally have done nothing to anyone (especially men) but work hard and play fair, and thus you resent the comments of photogbill and Handy. To this, I would ask you to lift your sights beyond the personal (and thereby avoid making yourself an ironic case-in-point to photogbill's "'it's all about me' attitude" quip) and open your eyes to the reasons behind their obvious frustration. Look past their (understandable) anger-fueled hyperbole and you can't help but see the rather large seed of truth that sticks in the craw there.

To you and other equal-worker women who claim not to be feminists and think that is enough, I say, no, sorry, is most definitely is NOT. You can't ride silently into today's "equality" society on the coattails of feminism and pick and choose from the smorgasbord of rights and think someone is going to continue to pick up your responsibilities tab just because you weren't the Evil-Feminism Harpy who actively bamboozled her way in.

If you want credibility as a non-feminist, at the very least you are going to have to do a much better job of looking past the personal and actively acknowledging and addressing such issues as those raised by Johnnyp.

I don't expect this from non-feminist women who aspire to our traditional, dymorphic human sex roles, because they are paying their way by creating families and raising society's next generation. They didn't change the rules and then try to burn the candle at both ends.

You claim to want to be treated equally, but be careful what you ask for. Do you really want to be held to equality in the body bag lottery in Iraq, or at the bottom of some collapsing coal mine or other male dominated death profession?

Since you brought your personal life into the conversation, I think it's fair to ask, have you married and produced and raised children within that marriage where at least one of you or your husband has been home to raise your children?

Do you see how these questions matter to fair minded men and women who care about the future of our society and nation? (Hint: why do you think the Western world's birth rate is trending to well below the replacement level - 1.3 in some countries?)

Think well - see clearly.

equal pay?
beyond the equal pay discussion - preferential hiring is rampant.
The job requirements are bent every day to accommodate womens' hiring- different physicals, different standards and worse yet, complete disregard of hiring testing,interview,and competence results.
Companies have a hard time satisfying big brother's notion of equality in the workplace so they hire any woman who remotely can be passed off as qualified--and if she's a minority they get a two-fer and forget the hiring process-just mail in the resume.
I was an instructor and check pilot for a major for many years, and it was difficult to meet "quotas" so any female that could fit in the simulator was an automatic pass. At first I applied exactly the same standards as for any male applicant-but after my negative evaluations were overridden by higher management continuously I just moved them on -as did the other check Captains. Fortunately I was soon able to retire-but I still shudder at the thought of these people in a cockpit.
Yes you can cite all kinds of statistics on the subject- but personal experience backed up by years evaluating "new hires" proves to me that society values "fairness" over reality.
ughhh

violet
What a heartening post- good for you -and enjoy every day of your career

thinkwell, gently99, phil
gently99 and phil: thanks for your kind comments.

thinkwell,
Thanks for your comments too. While I very much appreciate their reasoned nature, and think they deserve a reply (very good questions), sorry, can't agree that the "hyperbole" of Handy and photogbill is understandable. Their comments are one-sided and don't recognize the varying nature of workers, men AND women. That's all I was trying to drive home in the post, by pointing out that there are women who don't live down to their expectations.

Also didn't appreciate the anger displayed, driven by their own stereotyping. And I thought men were supposed to be the calm, logical ones ( :) )...!

To answer your points, just to be clear, made a point of not calling myself a feminist because self-identifying feminists these days seem to think the "smorgasbord of rights" to which you refer includes abortion, gay marriage, other unacceptable things beyond the scope of this post, and an unfortunate (not universal but too prevalent) tendency to attack men who don't deserve it, just because they're men.

I'm not alone in this refusal. Time magazine addressed, in a big piece on feminism not too long ago, talked about women who want equal pay for equal work but refuse to call themselves feminists, and why we do that. We DO appreciate the efforts of women who worked for equal pay, we just don't accept the whole boatload of positions on which NOW purports to represent us. The "feminist whining" to which Johnnyp refers is a great example of this, and to answer your excellent point, I agree with him (her?) on it.

What confuses me a bit is that you say you accept the "non-feminist" self-label from women who accept "traditional" (whatever that means--stay-at-home moms I guess) because, in your personal view, they are "paying their way" (translation: they thus are entitled to their opinion, as opposed to someone who disagrees with your assessment yet remains in the workforce) for this opinion by raising families. Sorry if I misunderstand you, but that's how it sounds.

To keep this post to reasonable length, I didn't address the other issues you're talking about. I didn't say how I stand on women in combat, or collapsing coal mines or the other issues you brought up. These are all very legitimate issues, but I wasn't talking about them.

And I did not bring my personal life into the conversation, as you claim. I brought up my work life, in response to two people who were basically claiming that women were a liability in the workplace.

So I'm going to take your good advice ( :) ) and stay away from any discussion of my personal situation. But your larger question is a good one, and to answer it (correct me if I misunderstand it) I totally agree with Steve Chapman in this article and believe that women who choose differently in the workplace (re: choice of higher or lower paying professions, family choices, personal life choices, children choices) must expect a difference in their work pay experience.

And as many posters point out above (in better ways than photgbill and Handy managed to do) that's only fair, and it's not "feminism" to expect more pay if I choose differently than the free market (except for out and out sex discrimination, which I trust we all agree is wrong) is willing to pay.

Thanks again for your comments.

Bogus use of statistics
As a scientist, I find it especially revealing (although not at all surprising) that my feminist colleagues (American Association of University Women) are not at all above twisting the statistics into a completely bogus finding, and that the mainstream media picks up this stinking cow pie and displays it before us as if it were diamonds or gold. Feminists aren't the only ones to push an agenda through bogus science, of course, but the real finding of this study is that today almost all of the so-called "gender gap" in pay is due to life choices, rather than employer discrimination. On average, a woman chooses to enter a profession where the "internal rewards" are greater than the external ones, chooses to avoid dangerous and dirty and physically demanding jobs that offer greater monetary compensation, and chooses to spend more time away from work pursuing non-financial rewards. I'm sure we can find anecdotal evidence that sex discrimination still exists, but I can also share anecdotes from my own career about those who've discriminated against me because of my sex, my skin color, or my religion. The actual data suggests that American women have won their fight against discrimination in the workplace, and it's time to move on to something else. But what fun would that be, particularly for a group that self-identifies itself on the basis of gender (the American Association of University Women)?

Discrimination is too expensive
If discrimination were the cause for pay gaps between men and women, it would only take a handful of businesses to employ women at that 75% of men's earnings. Then, since they are paid less for the same work, those companies would be more profitable.

When this happens, the pay scale for women would change, because then they would be in more demand, causing their prices to rise.

Since business owners act in their own best interests, they would likely hire many female employees if they could get the same performance at 75 or 80% of the price. I don't understand why this concept escapes so many.

College major and pay gap
"As early as one year after graduation, a pay gap is found between women and men who had the same college major."

It really doesn't matter what their college major is, but what jobs they have a year after college. This study would be much more compelling if it showed a pay gap a year after college between men and women who had the same major AND the same job. Otherwise, comparing wages is irrelevant.

Pay Gap
Nice fairy tale. I'm sure insecure men will eat it up while secure men will tell you, in most instances, including state and federal jobs, the pay is not equal.
Many people have developed this act of "busy at looking busy" while at work. I've noticed more men taking up this tact so they can show the boss that they are dedicated to the company. After all, we still live in times where many men, despite their wives also having jobs, can't be bothered with the little things like transporting kids to various afterschool and weekend events, going shopping for food and clothes, cooking the meals, cleaning the house, taking care of the social engagement planning, going to school and other programs, and all of the other unimportant things which are women's work.
If work isn't done during official work hours, women do it at home. So, physical presence at a job has nothing to do with the actual work product that's produced. Personally, I get much more work done at home than at the job.
It seems to me that many women ought to get more money for their work, both outside of the home and at home. Let's be real about this. There are men waiting to pounce on women whom they feel can't handle the pressures of working, while at the same time women are expected to do much more or be considered bad employees, wives/partners and mothers.
So, if you want to judge a woman's "worth" by the actual time spent working, you loose!
Sharon

There's a gap...
I am more COnservative than just about anuybdoy on this Board, but this article is just wrong. I worked in Human Resources for a Business firm, and I saw first-hand that women are hired in at less money than men for identical positions. I think the problem is complicated by several issues, but the biggest obstacle seems to be that because women simply don't ask for as much as men do, business expects to hire the women for less than the men. But expecting the government, or even the men, to fix the problem is certainly not the answer. It's a market economy - we're all responsible for making our best deal.

Three Points
First Point: If the pay gap were real, several people have pointed out how companies could substantially cut their payroll costs by hiring only women.

As far as pilots in civilian airlines, I have no real knowledge, but in the Air Force I know of a number of female pilots fully qualified in flying the KC-135 completely on their own merit and just as good as the typical male pilot.

Second Point: When I finally graduated from college (39 years after high school) and was interviewing for a job, the companies where I interviewed (Enterprise RAC, Sears, State Farm, Mervyns, etc all paid the same starting wage to men and women.) Whe Hertz hired me, a woman who started about a week after I did got the same hourly salary that I did. The only difference in our paycheck was the hours we worked and how well we sold optional services.) After a couple of years I started working part-time and her hourly wage increased while mine did not increase.

Third Point: An exercise in one class was based on comparing the salaries of men and women by their college major and 5 years after graduation. It varied widely by major, but basically in the technical engineering fields, women were paid as much or more than men, in some cases 110% of mens wages. In the liberal arts majors they were much more likely to receive lower wages with the clergy having the biggest pay gap between men and women, about 70% if I remember correctly.

Conclusion: There are differences, but the vast majority of the difference is based on factors other than gender.

Clyde9

A more legitimate question may be...
...why traditionally "female" jobs are paid less. Jobs like teaching and librarianship don't have as much risk as being on the front lines of a war, but they do have as much as being a lawyer or an engineer. They also come with heavy price tags for all the required degrees to do them (often double Masters degrees). Yet, while the credential demand has risen, the wages haven't met the rise in graduate school costs (or rent costs). It's like these jobs are assumed to be hobby careers for married women whose husbands make the real bucks... which is not the case anymore.

That said, though, to the best of my knowledge, guys who choose those careers are in the same predicament as women who choose them. It's definitely more about the job than it is about the gender.

Miss W
The primary reason jobs pay differentially is supply and demand. I don't make much money as a university professor because there are dozens of brand-new PhDs graduated every year who are eager to take my job for less money if I should quit. (Graduate schools always train more PhDs than the market will support because the graduate students act as lab-slaves for the established PhDs on their committee.) On the other hand, the need for physicians is always high -- some allege it is kept artificially high -- so they can sell their services at a premium. It isn't how long you spend in school that is the real issue, it is the demand for the services you can provide.

Continued
Sorry for the split post, I appear to have a wild mouse. The other aspect of demand is how desperately they need your services. A person may want to find a reference librarian available when they visit the public library, but this desire does not approach the need to find a physician when you've got a broken leg or a ruptured spleen. The Doc has got you over a barrel, so it's easy for them to grab your wallet from your hip pocket. Teachers and librarians, on the other hand, will always be dependent upon the kindness of strangers.

Other factors
Things that cannot be quantified:

1. females in the work forces open the possibility of sexual harrassment lawsuits. Thus an employer has to take this into account and allow a certain amount of cash to pay for the possibility of lawyers and settlements. It is a small chance, so a small amount, but it effects women's salaries.

2. Maternity leave: Not that women take it, but that they expect to be employed when they come back. this means hiring a temp, then spending several weeks getting a woman back up to speed when she comes back. that is a financial loss.

3. Maternity leave part 2: Some women come back, then, shortly after, decide to leave for good to be a mother at home. This means getting her back up to speed (and losing money) then afterward having to find a replacement. Very few men leave after a baby to become stay at home fathers, so this hurts women too.

Many of these factors cannot be calculated in these figures, yet they do effect pay, whether anyone admits it or not. (And I am sure there are more.)

Lastly, the solutions themselves cause problems. By giving woment he right to sue for discrimination, you make every woman hired a potential liability, and their pay decreases by the amount they may cost in future legal fees. Anti-discrimination laws actuially make it mroe expensive to hire the group they supposedly protect.

Steve
Women choose to go into less high paying fields, and that SHOULD be the end of it. Why do we need to concern ourselves with their choices? It is not the job of the government to ask why free citizens make the career choices they do.

So, mroe women go into pediatrics than surgery. So what? Why is it a problem? Why try to "fix it"? And how?

The conservative message should be "It is none of our business", not your straw-man "we don't care". It really is none of our business.

And how would you "solve" this "problem"? Force women to go into surgery who want to go into pediatrics? Force hospitals to hire a percentage of woman surgeons, whether they exist or not? Or waste a fortune on studies and to "convince" women to go into surgery?

My position: Women may choose less well paid fields, but it is not a problem and is not something with which government or society at large should concern itself.

Recent posts on this thread
have generally been doing better than earlier comments in addressing the substance of the original column; that there is a pay gap, and other factors are a more likely cause. Gender discrimination is a very implausible explanation in some places where the gap is present, unless women are doing the discriminating. That may be; I have heard of the "queen bee" phenomenon.

Miss W:
Kodiak already addressed the obvious reason for the difference in pay between the 2 sets of career choices you cited. There is also a less well acknowledged reason.

A lawyer or an engineer will demonstrably generate more income for their employer than the teacher or the librarian can generate (in productive equivalent) for their's. The fact that the latter are in non-profit professions only exacerbates the situation. The fact that they have similar- or even superior, in the case of some teachers I know of- professional development demands, is largely irrelevant.

Try this analogy: It very likely takes as much athletic talent, effort, and dedication to become a superstar (or even reach the majors) in the National Hockey League as it does to rise to similar status in the NFL, NBA, or Major League Baseball. Should the government therefore mandate, in the interest of equality, that the minimum salaries and top contracts of all the leagues be identical?

June O'Neil's
statement "For men and women who never marry or have children, there is no pay gap" says it all. How can people claim employers choose to hire men when they can get better women cheaper? Would they do it? Do they know anyone who does? All these grievances seem to take place long ago in a galaxy far away. Millions homeless, children starving because their parents can't make a "living wage". Missing a meal while watching TV does not qualify as starving in my book. I guess my mean-spirited racist homophobic capitolist hate has just taken me out of control. Perhaps its because i've been in countries where half of the newborns never make it to 5 years old. I think we have it pretty good here. The bashers know not of what they speak.

The truth was spoken by Scottie
Scottie writes: Sunday, April, 29, 2007 9:57 AM
If the allegation were true
How would a man ever find a job if women would actually do the same job for less? Any CEO worth his salt would simply hire only women, cut his payroll costs substantially, and deliver greater shareholder value than his competitors that have "overpriced" men on their payrolls. Think about it, the assertion simply cannot be true in a capitalist economy. No rational company would voluntarily forego lower labor costs.

The market drives all prices, including wages. And the market's response wouldn't be to increase the wages of women, it would be to lower men's wages until wages equalized or until every woman working for less was fully employed and the only alternative left was to hire more expensive men.

Differing results are not proof of discrimination, the Left's whining notwithstanding. When liberals talk about equality, they mean equality of results. When conservatives talk about equality, they mean equality of opportunity.

------------------------
And I will add that in the near future as the baby boomers implode most of this will cease to be an issue. What is a real issue is that two average wage earners are needed now, and that is not an option. Equal pay, but todays college grads and starting hires need two pay checks to live. Sucks to be single, I figured I would have to work 100+ hours a week to even break even.

And the two job 60 hour work week is already pointless. It wouldn't be so bad if it actually paid the bills, but when I wake up in the morning I have to tell myself not to think about the pay, just go do the job. Don't think... But every now and then I lose my sleep thinking that I am wasting my time, this is totally pointless in jobs with zip for a future. And a college degree that rots and is also worthless in America.

Are we living in the hotel california now, just rename it, "Hotel America".

There are more things to worry about in our economic future, and equal pay is going to feel like a moot point as we fight over scraps that don't exist.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.