Gender

5 Quick Facts About the Gender Pay Gap

Do women still earn just 79 percent of every dollar men make? A look at what's really going on with the gender wage gap

|

Keoni Cabral/Flickr

In America and the U.K., the "gender pay gap"—the space that separates average male-worker wages from average female-worker wages—has been picking up steam as an important political topic, especially as elections near. In the process, a lot of misinformation is also gaining traction. Yet rigorous research on the gender pay gap paints quite a different picture than the political spin on it does.

As evidence, see this recent paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research ("The Gender Wage Gap: Extent, Trends, and Explanation"), co-authored by Cornell economists Francine D. Blau and Lawrence M. Kahn. Blau and Kahn looked at gender pay gap stats dating back to the 1950s and stretching through 2010. What they found—in the U.S. and other economically advanced countries—is that the difference in average pay between men and women in the workforce has been declining for decades. But this hasn't been happening at an equal rate for workers across income brackets, nor has progress been steady over the past few decades. 

The gender pay gap shrank the most in the 1980s. "The period of strongest wage convergence between men and women was the 1980s," found the economists. Progress at narrowing the pay gap "has been slower and more uneven since then."

In 1980, American women's average hourly earnings were about 63 percent of men's, but by 1989, women were earning 73 percent of what men did. But since the 1980s, the gap has closed much less quickly. In 2010, women were making 79 percent of men's overall wages. In 2014, full-time female workers earned about 79 percent of what men did on an annual basis and about 83 percent when wages were measured weekly. 

Wage-gap narrowing wasn't tied to government policies. In a section on the impact of government policies on the gender pay gap, Blau and Kahn explore whether "the time path of the increase in women's relative earnings appears compatible with an effect of [federal] laws and regulations." In short: not really.  

"We see no indication of a notable improvement in women's relative earnings in the immediate post-1964 period that might be attributable to the effects of the government's antidiscrimination effort," Blau and Kahn write. And while gains were made in select fields, the overall gender pay gap "remained basically flat through the late 1970s or early 1980s," also times of relatively high government action in this area. Meanwhile, "the largest female relative wage gains and the strongest evidence of a decline in the unexplained gender wage gap were during the 1980s…which includes a period in which the government's antidiscrimination effort was noticeably scaled back." 

So what does explain the closing of the gender pay gap in the 1980s? One suggestion researchers offer is a shift in the labor market that favored women. The decline of manufacturing jobs and other industries involving physical labor during this time, along with the rise of white-collar and computer-utilizing jobs, "appear to have favored women relative to men in certain ways." Trends that tilted toward men in the 1990s—the researchers don't mention any industries in particular, but the early Internet companies seem one likely culprit—may explain the slow down in closing the gender pay gap. 

Gender differences in occupations and job roles matter most. Researchers call variables like education level and past experience "human capital factors." In the mid to late 20th century, human capital factors were one of the biggest reasons behind the gender pay gap. But the role these factors play has been dropping, due "both to the reversal of the education gap between men and women and the narrowing of the gender gap in experience," Blau and Kah note.

In 1980, the experience gap explained 24 percent of the gender gap, but this was down to 16 percent in 2010.

Yet "employment segregation by sex" still factors significantly into wage differences. In fact, "gender differences in occupations and industries are quantitatively the most important measurable factors explaining the gender wage gap," according to Blau and Kahn. The share of the gap accounted for by "factors like occupation and industry actually increased from 27 percent of the 1980 gap to 49 percent of the much smaller 2010 gap," they write. 

High-income women have seen the smallest wage-gap closing. Between 1980 and 2010, the wage gap narrowed more slowly for women at the top income and job levels than it did for lower-paid and less specialized counterparts. By 2010, the gender wage gap, "which had been similar across the wage distribution in the 1980s, [was] larger for the highly skilled than for others," write researchers. 

"Labor force interruptions" to have or care for children and a need for more flexible hours may penalize workers in some professions, such as law and business, more than those in lower-wage occupations, they suggest.  Studies have shown that "work histories and current hours seem to be a particularly important determinant of gender wgae differences" in some high-wage professions, and work flexibility (working non-traditional hours or from home) imposes a higher wage penalty on people with law degrees and MBAs. 

Findings are fuzzy about the impact of family-leave policies. "The effect of parental leaves on the gender wage gap is theoretically ambiguous," according to Blau and Kahn's research. "Empirical evidence in the United States suggests that the effect of the [Family and Medical Leave Act] has been modest."

If anything, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)—which mandates 12 weeks unpaid but job-protected medical leave following the birth or adoption of a child or in event of a spouse or dependent falling seriously ill—has had a small positive effect on women's employment level overall but no effect on the wage gap, according to one large study. A smaller study on the effect of California's 2004 law mandating six weeks of paid parental leave also showed that more people went back to work post-leave, but the effect on wages wasn't significant. And a 2015 study suggested the FMLA increased the gender gap in promotions. 

Global studies show similarly mixed results. In a 1998 study of nine Western countries, not including the U.S., researchers found women's wages were unaffected by short parental leave policies but suffered with leave policies of more than five months. An earlier study by Blau and Kahn found that the expansion of family-leave policies in non-U.S., economically advanced nations between 1990 and 2010 resulted in an overall increase in female labor force participation but was also associated with "a lower likelihood of women having full-time jobs or working as managers or professionals." 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

128 responses to “5 Quick Facts About the Gender Pay Gap

  1. I don’t know. I watched 9 to 5 and it seems if we would just put 3 plucky women in charge, we could have this solved in like 3 weeks.

    1. Well, someone has to neutralize Dabney Coleman first.

      1. Dabney is an anagram for “any bed”.

        1. Well, also “any deb”, “ban dye”, and “ban yen”, amongst others. But the best? “And Bey”.

          This means something. It means the next Michael Bey movie will star…Dabney Coleman.

          1. That’s either horrifying, or awesome.

            1. It can be both!

          2. And Bey? So she’s going to be in the next Beyonc? video.

            1. STOP RUINING THINGS NICOLE

              1. No.

                1. You really are the worst.

          3. Its just this close to being an anagram for “deny bae”. Dammit.

          4. Not “ban yen”? “bad yen”.

      2. It won’t be easy. I once sawr him lift an elephant tusk over his head.

        1. Well, that’s a WOPR.

        2. She was 13.

      3. Admit it: you want to be trussed like him.

  2. Of all the evidence the various sides have presented regarding this “issue”, I find “Personal Choice” the most compelling argument as to the cause of this statistical anomaly.

    1. You don’t get it – womyn shouldn’t be ‘penalized’ for making choices. So we need to make sure ‘womyn’s occupations’ get paid as much as ‘men’s occupations’. A new government bureaucracy should do the trick.

      1. *inks ‘Rejected’ stamp*

        Your request will be processed soon.

        *applies ‘Rejected’ mark to WTF’s forehead*

        Your request has been denied.

        1. Dude, your shit’s all ‘tarded and you talk like a fag!

          1. We appreciate the feedback. Thank you for visiting the Department of Administrative Affairs, and have a nice day.

            1. But I even have my 27b/6!

              1. Dude, you really need the clip to drive that home.

      2. And sadly, this happens. I worked at a job where the science categories were compared to the clerical ones (because there were more men in one than the other). And so the clerks all got a large pay raise, well to be “fair”. Surprise, it was the government of course. (don’t hate me).

  3. Yet “employment segregation by sex” still factors significantly into wage differences. In fact, “gender differences in occupations and industries are quantitatively the most important measurable factors explaining the gender wage gap,”

    This is why we need a government bureaucracy to set wages to make sure that elementary school teachers are being paid as much as mechanical engineers. Because, fairness!

    1. When the teachers stop complaining about “common core math” (aka: math the way math people like engineers use it) we can talk about the engineer-teacher pay gap… until then… no you don’t get paid what I do to sabotage children’s problem solving skills with times tables.

  4. Yawn, wake me when they are serious about getting down to bidness:

    http://www.theonion.com/articl…..ist-m-2338

    1. No words. Should have sent a poet.

  5. Mind the gap

      1. the fap?

  6. Want to be taken seriously when you rant for “equality?” Start demanding that all 18 year old girls must register for the draft.

    1. I’d go for no registration for anyone, myself.

    2. Advocating slavery for all is not a good approach. It would be better to advocate slavery for none.

      1. Advocating for gender equality in draft registration might be a good way to motivate people to want to actually end it, though.

        1. Because enslaving half the population wasn’t enough to realize it was bad.

          1. Because enslaving half the population wasn’t enough to realize it was bad.

            Evidently not. Since women’s lives (“Women and children first!”) are traditionally considered more precious than men’s lives, it would likely provide greater motivation.

            1. If you wouldn’t burn your draft card to save yourself, why should I think you’d do it to save me?

              1. Not that you’re necessarily wrong when you say there should be no draft and no selective service, in fact there shouldn’t be, but the fact that there still is one and no one seems to give a shit about it means steps should be taken.

                Sorry, but not really sorry, if that threatens your ‘safe space’. If you make the argument that the government will never use the draft so we men shouldn’t care about selective service, then it’s rather cute that you would be against mandating such a system that will never be used for everyone.

                Of course, that’s how we’ve finally ended up in a situation where we men can ask for equal treatment under the law. Ironically, it’s because women wanted to be in the same shit boat that we are without realizing what a shit boat it was when they clamored on board.

          2. We’ve enslaved the historically expendable gender. The ones socially expected to do the dangerous work. This dangerous form of slavery is not seen as an issue because it ONLY affects the expendable half of the population.

            /No one will care/ apart from principled advocates of freedom (which are unfortunately too rare to move the issue by themselves) unless the slavery affects the non-expendable half of the population.

            Thus, the best bet for the principled advocates of freedom is to take advantage of the people obsessed with equality to bring equality of slavery about, thus endangering the non-expendable half of society which will result in everyone, left and right alike, willing to realize just how bad the slavery is.

            It’s sad that the strategy is necessary, but it’s necessary. No one cares if men are thrown into danger against their will, as the history of draft support and opposition has shown. On the other hand, people care about women even having mild discomfort. In our society, the best way to get people to care about something like the draft is for it to affect women. Just affecting men results in no one caring at all.

            1. That’s true. As Warren Farrell once pointed out, a movie where women are killed is a “horror movie”. A movie where men are killed is an “action movie”.

        2. Advocating for slavery is never a good way to motivate people.

          1. What we have is a slavery system no one cares about.

            Because it affects a part of society that traditionally is viewed as expendable.

            Sorry, but the only way that the majority people will ever care that the slavery exists is if the slavery affects people who are not considered culturally expendable.

        3. I guess we should encourage the police to shoot more white people then, might be a good way to motivate people to actually end police abuse.

          1. They already do shoot more white people. Not that that is in any way relevant.

      2. Advocating equality in slavery is just a round-a-bout way of doing just that. The fact is while only groups no one actually cares about are the groups that are enslaved, nothing will change. Expand slavery to women, a group people very much care about, and suddenly calls to end the slavery will follow.

      3. Advocating slavery for all is not a good approach. It would be better to advocate slavery for none.

        True, but I think that slavery only for a selected class, determined by genetics, is probably the worst option of all.

  7. Are you fucking kidding me?

    There is no pay gap.

    This IS Reason, right? Reason?

    Reason shows us that the pay gap is a contrivance created by using an incorrect amalgamation of data.

    1. In the simplest sense there is. Women, on average, across all employment, are paid less. It just doesn’t mean what a lot of people think it does.

      Did you read the article?

      1. Re: Zeb,

        In the simplest sense there is. Women, on average, across all employment, are paid less. It just doesn’t mean what a lot of people think it does.

        Like, for instance, that you can average interpersonal choices and get a meaningful number.

    2. Chill, you primordial ooze. We are working with ENB in pursuit of FACTS over FEELS. Under a long view, she has been doing really well.

      I imagine it is extremely alluring to suggest that there is some “anti-immutable” fiat against oneself, and therefore to believe in “the struggle.” Shilling takes a good long while proving itself fruitless before it drops, me thinks.

    3. There is a gap. In many industries, women of equal achievement make more than men.

      A black, female CS grad gets outrageous starting offers.

      1. More of that white privilege, I guess.

      2. “A black, female CS grad”

        The only females in CS are Middle Easterners, North Africans, and Indians. I don’t know why.

        1. Because the white chicks are too busy with their gender studies?

        2. Because they probably left their home countries in order to actually create wealth instead of learn about how impossibly pampered individuals can actually believe they are ‘oppressed’ would be my first guess.

    4. RACE CAR DRIVERS MAKE MORE MONEY THAN HOTEL MAIDS!

      SEXISM!

  8. “Yet “employment segregation by sex” still factors significantly into wage differences. In fact, “gender differences in occupations and industries are quantitatively the most important measurable factors explaining the gender wage gap,” according to Blau and Kahn.”

    The feminists get their panties in a wad over female statistical under representation in various and sundry high end technical jobs but you won’t hear a peep out of them regarding similar under representation in various dirty, dangerous or physical labor intensive jobs like garbage collectors or commercial fishermen.

    Strange, eh?

    1. Not too strange considering the source.

    2. There is a HUUUUGE gender gap in workplace injury and mortality, with men comprising in excess of 90% of the casulaties. No complaints from the feminists, though.

      1. Yeah it’s like they have a double standard about such things.

        Shocking, isn’t it?

        1. You do know feminists believe the patriarchy harms men as well as women, right?

          1. If men are running everything via “patriarchy” why would they deliberately arrange for their own gender to populate all of the most dangerous jobs in the first place?

            1. Is that supposed to be responsive?

              1. it’s not only supposed to be – it is.

                1. No one believes the patriarchy is something deliberately run by men. It’s a system of cultural oppression, and it oppresses men by forcing expectations of masculinity on them?just as it oppresses women by forcing expectations of femininity on them.

                  1. That is possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard (okay, not really, but in top 100).

                    Patriarchy is an active decision by (some) men to keep women down is a reason concept to oppose.

                    But, that…is just…wow…dumb.

                  2. “Cultural oppression”?

                    Real oppression has to be actually enforced by somebody otherwise there will be no oppression.

                    So who exactly is enforcing it?

                    1. So who exactly is enforcing it?

                      Almost everyone.

                    2. Good luck trying to prove that.

                    3. Yeah, it’s totally unbelievable that the vast majority of people are perpetuating the dominant culture.

                    4. Yeah, it’s totally unbelievable that the vast majority of people are perpetuating the dominant culture.

                      Very different from “cultural oppression.”

                      Just because somebody is “othered” by not being a part of the dominant culture doesn’t mean they’re being oppressed.

                      The only oppression that exists is self-oppression. Being “plugged in” to the dominant culture is entirely voluntary and entirely self-motivated. Case in point: the Amish.

                    5. Just because somebody is “othered” by not being a part of the dominant culture doesn’t mean they’re being oppressed.

                      Well it’s a good thing that’s not the mechanism I was describing.

                      It is being a part of the dominant culture that is oppressive. Being raised in it. Turning out like Ken Shultz below.

                      And there’s nothing voluntary about what your parents do to you before you escape them.

                    6. It is being a part of the dominant culture that is oppressive.

                      Me thinks you don’t know what “oppressive” means. You can’t be oppressed by something you can opt out of!

                      Being raised in it. . . And there’s nothing voluntary about what your parents do to you before you escape them.

                      Okay, now you’re making something resembling a point. It’s a really shitty point, but at least the words are all coming together to form a cogent idea.

                      Let’s assume, for a second, that you’re correct. Parenting is a tool of oppression. In that case, it’s a government-sponsored and aided tool of oppression. Traditional Judeo-Christian custom had children reaching adulthood at 13 or 14. Early American culture had children gaining apprenticeship experience (meaning that they would sometimes live with their master) at age 8 or 9. It was the Progressive Era and all of their stupid labor laws that made the world we live in today. Adulthood somewhere between 18 and 26? That would have been laughable before the Progressives got their hands on society.

                      You’re tilting at the wrong windmill. There’s no “patriarchy,” there’s a government driven expansion of childhood that came out of late 19th century progressivism.

                      Of course, the premise is absolute shit… if parenting is oppressive, then nature and biology itself is oppressive, which leads to either misanthropy (which 4th wave feminism falls into) or nihilism.

                    7. If I’m not mistaken, Nikki is a nihilist. NTTAWWT

                    8. Egads, Trshmnstr, you shut Nikki down so hard with logic and facts that I think they grew a dendrite!

                      *looks at commentary below*

                      Nope. Nice try through.

                    9. How does any culture become dominant to begin with?

                      Cultures just don’t come into existence by some mysterious force like the Big Bang creating the Universe.

                  3. Hearing feminists talk about “The Patriarchy” is only slightly less convincing then hearing Christians talk about “The Devil”. Basically, it can be used to justify everything, but actually explains nothing.

                    1. Substitute “the dominant culture” for “the patriarchy.”

                    2. Nikki is correct.

                      In fact, most politicians’ pandering to feminism, and the degree that such pandering is well received, is due to the unconscious bias towards gender roles that most women have, as well as men.

                      It goes something like this:

                      “Awww, look at those poor, doe-eyed women. They can’t handle manly things like money, jobs, negotiating, etc. Let’s try to step in for them and help them out: give them a boost up in equality. There you go, miss. Awwww. That’s right: smile and give daddy a hug. Now, come on by my place this weekend. I have some ‘woman jobs’ you can help me with around the house. Bring that smile, too.”

                    3. As though the feminist agenda doesn’t actually define the dominant culture these days. Have you never seen a movie, or a televison series, or even a few commercials and advertisements? Jesus.

                  4. “It’s a system of cultural oppression, and it oppresses men by forcing expectations of masculinity on them”

                    I’m kinda butch.

                    Forcing expectations of masculinity on me is like forcing me to watch football and eat beef ribs.

                    I like watching football. I like beef ribs.

                    I also like opera and museums and my Latin is pretty good.

                    Have you ever noticed that women seem to like the idea of being with effeminate men more than they like actually being with effeminate men?

                    1. I’m glad the programming worked so well on you, Ken.

                    2. It wasn’t programming for me. Maybe there are guys out there who felt compelled to be masculine.

                      I took to it like a fish to water.

                      Maybe the question is about whether making more masculine guys like me act like we’re less masculine than we are is better than making less masculine guys feel like they have to act more masculine than they are.

                      Cross culturally, aren’t there certain things that are more masculine?

                    3. “I’m glad the programming worked so well on you, Ken.”

                      I have to confess that even things like welfare and redistributive socialism seem effeminate to me.

                      I don’t think things are necessarily bad because they’re feminine, but there is something off about forcing one sex to behave as if they were another. I am not a little girl.

                      When Obama wants to take my choices away to keep me safe from making choices about my own insurance, my natural inclination isn’t to call that patriarchy. Seems more like matriarchy.

                  5. “No one believes the patriarchy is something deliberately run by men. It’s a system of cultural oppression”

                    Then you are using the wrong word for that.

                    Patriarchy: a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.

                    The word you are looking for is “Gender Roles”.

                    1. The dominant culture is based on ribs and football?
                      Didn’t we have an EPA article this weekend about how they hate flyover country culture?
                      Maybe there’s a lot more grey?

                    2. @ Eternal Blue Sky

                      Patriarchy only means the latter. If it meant the former, it would be meaningless, because all societies have a dominance of men in power positions. There are a vanishingly small number of matriarchies.

                      The only question is if women are excluded from power. I don’t think they are. The number of CEOs reflects the number of women with the level of experience and drive to take those roles. The number of women in politics reflects the number of women who ran for office.

                  6. Patriarchy is just another flavor of neo-Marxian false consciousness.

                    Something that victimized everyone, that no one is really responsible for, but which some people should nonetheless be punished for.

                    I’ll pass.

            2. To kill off competitors and get some grieving widow tail?

      2. I saw complaints recently that the #1 reason behind women’s work-related deaths in the US is seriously office shootings. People complained that this was evidence that violence against women was epidemic, but the actual reasoning behind the fact that office shootings are the #1 cause of work-related deaths for women, is because women across the board do not die at work, and seldom enter high-casualty lines of work. More men died in office shootings than women, but it wasn’t their #1 cause because they die in a multitude of other ways.

        1. The real question is how many of those male workplace fatalities began with ‘hold my beer, watch this…’

    3. From my experience in college and in the workplace, American women are not interested in “sundry high end technical jobs”.

      The only female Computer Scientists I have worked with immigrated from India. The vast majority of ALL women in my CS classes were Indian, Middle Eastern, or North African. The girl who worked on my capstone project team was Moroccan. I am not exaggerating to say that 80% of the women in my CS classes wore hijab.

      Plenty of women from India and the Middle East and North Africa go into Computer Science, and they don’t come from countries well known for gender equality, so it’s not an issue of equality that dissuades them from the sciences. I kind of suspect it is because while feminist groups SAY they want women in STEM fields, the education they actually encourage women to get is in Gender Studies. The foreign women who want to go into STEM go into STEM, and aren’t encouraged to go into Gender Studies instead. But, this is just speculation, as I doubt we will ever see a study willing to look into why the Middle East has no problem getting women into STEM while the US does.

      1. I knew some American female computer scientists/software engineers. One transitioned to HR (at a pay cut) because she liked it more, and another was a journeyman (journeywoman??) level programmer. Good at what she did, but certainly not good enough to quickly rise up the pay scale.

        1. “Journeybot” is the preferred nomenclature now, I believe.

      2. because gender studies is a bunch of fluff while STEM requires actual hard work. it’s easier to be part of the chorus of complaints that they are not enough women in STEM than it is to be part of the solution by actually studying it.

  9. You’d think these harpies would be ecstatic to hear that either A) the pay gap isn’t as bad as they think it is or B) completely nonexistent. It’s almost like there’s an ulterior motive or something…

    1. Which harpies?

      1. You know, Nicole…*those* harpies. You know the ones he means. *wink wink*

      2. Witch Harpies, run!

      3. I think he meant to say “herpes” or “hairpiece”.

        http://www.hairpieceherpes.com/

      4. The harpies flogging bad science for their own gain? Those harpies?

      5. Just taking a stab at it, but maybe the ones screeching about the pay gap and income inequality?

    2. nah. these are the same nags who get upset to learn that rape isn’t as rampant as they’ve been told.

  10. None of this is particularly surprising to me. It’s a nuanced picture, but since I feel like engaging in some armchair speculation, I’ll make the following statements

    1) There probably is some outright discrimination left in the workforce, but not nearly as much as the activist class would like to believe.
    2) Most of the remaining gap can be explained by a combination of personal choices (less aggressive salary negotiation by women, the decision to take a more active role in child rearing), employer perception (women are more likely to take leave and are therefore more risky), and cultural forces (which at least plays a role in why women tend to take a more active role in childcare, or go into fields which may not pay as much [like STEM]).
    3) Some people will still view everything in 2) as an injustice because they view almost anything with disparate impact as evidence of injustice.
    4) It won’t take long for a rebuttal study to come along that contradicts almost everything in this one, so people will be able to choose whichever story they like best.

  11. I’m informed by the ads of Katy McGinty, running as a Democrat for Senate in Penna., that women make 21 cents less per hour than men. I have a corporation board meeting on Monday; I think I’ll suggest the company fire all the men and hire just women to really improve the bottom line. I don’t know why the management has, thus far, failed to take such an obvious step.

    1. The fact that this never happens should be sufficient to give the lie to this nonsense.

      1. No, it just shows that even the profit motive bows down to hatred of women. Yes, corporate executives would rather lose money than treat women fairly.

        1. It’s not even that. They would rather lose money than exploit the well-known women labor rule where you only need to pay them 80% of what that position normally hires at. This is despite the evidence that they will do this exact thing with immigrant labor regardless of gender right now today.

          If only there was a law, or even an amendment to the constitution, that said they had some kind of recourse if they were mistreated in this way!

        2. I know you are being sarcastic, but there are some people who believe this.

          Most HR departments are run by women. Corporate executives almost never influence hiring.

          1. I work side-by-side with H.R. at my company and in fact 100% of them are women here, as they were at my last company as well. That being said, H.R. does all the intermediary work but the positions are generally decided upon by either the hiring manager or a corporate executive. H.R. is a middle-man, so to speak. ^_-

            1. I’m not sure what company you work at, but at industrial firms, you are basically hired by a person the same level as your boss. I hire all my engineers. The VP or president wouldn’t waste his time trying pick people for this.

  12. If being available for child rearing has any impact on women executives’ pay, that isn’t really a problem businesses should be forced to address.

    Again we’re talking about evolutionary stuff here–cross culturally, men are not excellent at taking care of infants on a daily basis. They’re good at protecting and providing for mothers and infants. Men are already adapting to women becoming more of an economic force by learning to do their share of the housework, and perhaps they’ll become better at taking care of infants in time, as well.

    The solution is not to force businesses to pay women who take care of children the same as single men. I used to work more than 12 hour days, six or seven days a week. My performance obliterated the female competition in the office–and the married men in the office whose wives wouldn’t put up with them working that kind of schedule.

    If there are women who can’t compete because they have children, then the solution isn’t to pay them like they’re performing at my level. The solution is for women with children to pick a job level for themselves that’s appropriate for how much time they want to spend at work and to deal with their husbands themselves if their husbands aren’t picking up an appropriate share of the slack.

  13. You know what, maybe WE NEED A LAW, to right this horrible wrong. We likely need a big government entity to manage all this.

    This is too important of an issue to allow “Free Minds and Free Markets” to really exist. Oh, wait.

    ENB take this Progressive crap to Slate…..

    or maybe Reason needs to change the damn slogan now….

    1. I’m getting the strong sense that you didn’t actually read the article.

      1. The article make the IMHO fatal assumption that there is really something to all this crap. All the “facts” are stated in response to the huge wage gap problem.

        The best way to argue about this is to state that working for someone is an agreement and of women in the workforce can negotiate their pay just like everyone else, or quit just like everyone else if they don’t feel they’re being treated fairly.

        Perhaps we should deal with people as people and not as “member of special snowflake categories” or the alternative “member of trivial category that is allowed to be hated”.

        1. The article make the IMHO fatal assumption that there is really something to all this crap.

          There is something to this. That said, after making the principled objection, there is some value to tearing down the “supporting evidence”.

          I think it comes down to whether you believe in an unfalsifiable construct know as “patriarchy” that works in mysterious ways. The true believers are just that: acting on faith, not reason, logic, or evidence. You’ll never convince them. If you aren’t a true believer, you might get taken in by their crap evidence, unless you see something refuting it.

    2. we need more than a law. we need a revolution! we need to have a system designed by our betters that simply tells us where to work, how much we should get paid and where we ought to live!

  14. For me, the problem with discussing this is that I don’t see any point to comparing one heterogeneous mass of workers to another. Job choices and salaries are very very individual things. There are both men and women who have good careers that they’re happy with, and both men and women who have careers that are in some way unsatisfactory. For everybody in the latter group, the solution has to be pursued by the individuals.

    I’ve never compared my pay with my coworker’s pay. I’ve only compared it to what I think is fair for my contribution, which is by necessity a subjective opinion. In cases where I didn’t like the pay and/or conditions, I took it upon myself to find a different job, rather than sit around waiting for some bloody politician who doesn’t even know me to fix it. Shit, if I waited on them to fix things I’d probably be permanently unemployed!

    1. both men and women who have careers that are in some way unsatisfactory. For everybody in the latter group, the solution has to be pursued by the individuals.

      But so much easier to blame every bad thing that ever happens to you on bigots and haters. Because bad things never happen to white men.

      1. Well, other than workplace fatalities that is. Otherwise it’s the land of milk and honey.

  15. RE: 5 Quick Facts About the Gender Pay Gap

    I am so glad Hollywood doesn’t have a pay gap between male and female performers.
    (Giggle, giggle).

  16. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  17. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..
    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.CenterWeb10.com

  18. my roommate’s aunt scored 4210 dollars a week on the internet . She has been unemployed for 7 months but previous month her revenue was 14458 bucks just at work on the MacBook for some hours?AJ!12

    http://www.Aspire-jobs.com/?Gl…..g$98/h.php

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.