MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

White House Says Wage Gender Gap Stats Are Misleading...When Applied to the White House

White House/InstagramWhite House/InstagramWhite House Press Secretary Jay Carney doesn't like when you apply the same logic governing wages in private businesses to his employer's own payroll. As President Obama prepares to sign an executive order addressing the gender gap in federal contractors' wages, critics have pointed out that female White House staffers make an average of 88 cents for every dollar male staffers earn. 

Carney protested that this was misleading, because women and men holding similar positions at the White House are paid equivalent salaries. Because women outnumber men at the lowest levels of the employee chain, however, the average female salary at the White House is lower. 

Carney is right: It is misleading to average the salaries of men and women in widely varying positions and then use this as evidence that women are being discriminated against. That women disproportionately make up lower-paid positions may point to some broad, systematic gender bias, past or present, but it doesn't equal outright sexist behavior on an employer's part. 

It's good that Carney acknowledges this as far as the White House is concerned, because the Obama administration and many others are quick to gloss over nuance like this when talking about the wage gap in general. We frequently hear that American women make only 77 cents for every dollar men make, but this is based on data that fail to account for women's work histories and life choices. It aggregates the earnings of women in all positions and compares this average against the earnings of all men. 

As The Washington Post's Nia-Malika Henderson points out, "It's hard to find a study that finds no pay disparity in what men and women make,"—several studies place it closer to 84 cents on the dollar. But the gap is neither as wide nor as easily reduced as many would make it out to be. Though there are surely some occupations and companies where women get paid less out of plain old sexism, the wage gap overall seems a product of large but less nefarious structural and cultural forces.

These forces are certainly worth talking about. Why do women still flock to lower-paying fields and positions? How can women, men, and companies make having children less detrimental to women's careers? Why does the wage gap widen for older women even when they don't have children? Etcetera. But trotting out misleading statistics about women's wages not only fails to address these issues adequately, it actively works against addressing them. It makes things too simplistic, and thus given to simplistic solutions.

This week, Senate Democrats are (again) considering the "Paycheck Fairness Act," which would require employers to submit pay information annually for all employees. How will this help shrink the wage gap? No one's been too specific about that. But, hey, what's a little more bureaucracy when there's the spectacle of government action to uphold?

The bill would also make employers liable to civil actions for pay discrimination. Republicans in Congress say this is unnecessary, because gender-based discrimination is already illegal. But a vote against the bill is a good way to get painted as complicit in the Republican "war on women," so you can see why backing the lackluster legislation is a good political move for Democrats. Henderson notes in the Post that states where Democrats are running close races this year seem to contain Democrats most concerned about addressing the wage gap immediately. 

Photo Credit: White House/Instagram

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.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Of course the White house average is more than the national average. The factors that drag down the national are unlikely to apply to women seeking White House jobs due to nature of those jobs. It is a self selection bias.

  • datcv||

    I watched the video of Jay Carney hemming and hawing about why it's different in the White House and as the blood vessels in my forehead started to pulsate towards bursting, I wondered how he did not collapse into a spiraling black hole vortex of cognitive dissonance.

  • Paul Spomer||

    The same way all political types avoid collapsing into a spiraling black hole vortex of cognitive dissonance. He's gotten good at it.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Salary discrimination is a fake issue.

  • ||

    Just like all the other issues the proggies rail about. Every. Fucking. One.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Just like all the other issues the proggies rail about. Every. Fucking. One.

    But what about TEH KKKORPORASHUNS and INCUM INEKWALITEE!?!?!1!!one!!

  • Dave Krueger||

    It's importation that we focus on important issues like this rather than wasting time on trivial shit like mass surveillance, the huge federal debt, a foreign policy that engenders hatred of the U.S., etc.

    This is like the minimum wage. Much better that we focus on the need to raise it rather than concern ourselves with the government-generated inflation that perpetually undermines it.

  • Mickey Rat||

    This is an evergreen red meat issue to the progressive base, as there is little the government can actually do to change the gap because it is largely driven by differences in how men and women choose to prioritize their lives.

  • Pro Libertate||

    After Jeb Bush made some remark about immigration, the conservative talking heads dropped everything else to talk about that issue.

    We have a few major concerns that take precedence over immigration, income gaps, discrimination, abortion, etc. Out of control spending, regulatory destruction of markets, ridiculously unfair and high taxation, continuous assaults on civil liberties, and a foreign policy that could be improved upon by a committee of kindergarteners.

  • ||

    Trivial KULTUR WAR issues are the most important of all, ProL.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Clearly that's true, else they wouldn't be the topic of conversation over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and

  • John||

    There is two reasons for it Pro. First, the issues you mention are really hard and not conducive to a cartoon "good guy bad guy" portrayal. Yeah, spending is bad but everyone has some spending they like, so who is right? That is the kind of hard question the nitwits in the media don't like asking. The culture war in contrast is easy. One side is evil and the other side is good, just pick your side and go to town.

    The second reason is that the political establishment doesn't want people talking about the hard problems because they are hard and the last thing they want is for society to start asking them about it or expecting them to come up with any solutions. Since the media is in bed with the political establishment, they don't ask hard questions and stick to the easy stuff like the culture war.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I know precisely why they hammer these issues, but the Republicans are morons to let the conversation settle there. Right now, they could safely focus on the real threats to this country's health, growth, and future.

    Naturally, since they love Big Government, too, they'll do little to no such thing.

  • JW||

    They're both TEAM HEYLOOKOVERTHERE.

    Of course, the prols are too vapid and invested in the breads and circuses to object to the show too much.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Wouldn't it be great if all non-Dems starting having press conferences on economic failures, Ocare failures, and the NSA almost simultaneously.

    All with one talking point in common - anytime they are asked about the CEO of Mozilla they respond with "I'm sorry, but I think far more important than one CEO is privacy violations/people without healthcare/job issues/etc".

    Of course as you point out - the other side likes using the culture war too - so unlikely we'll see that.

  • MJGreen||

    The president doesn't have much control over those things. Subtle discrimination across the breadth of the American economy, on the other hand, is something he can fix.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Lol

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Excellent

  • Brett L||

    "You know I would never hurt you, baby. Its just these goddamn Teabaggers and this goddamn War (on Women)."

  • mad libertarian guy||

    +1 Forest Gump

  • flye||

    If I could pay a woman less for the same work output as a man, I'd have nothing but women as employees. Why would I throw that extra money away?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    + 1 binder full of women

  • flye||

    Finally a gift I could really use. Thank you.

  • JWatts||

    "binder full of women"

    I never even understood that flap, other than it just being a mindless attack on Mitt Romney.

  • Loki||

    I never even understood that flap, other than it just being a mindless attack on Mitt Romney.

    That's all it was. Sounds to me like you understood it prefectly.

  • The Original Jason||

    You could probably also get Equal Opportunity preferences…

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Because women are a veritable font of workplace discrimination and sexual harrassment litigation.

  • ||

    Why, because you are a bigoted misogynist, of course! That's why you (and every other capitalist) pay women less AND why you don't have a workforce that's 100% female.

    Now, for my next trick, I will explain how lower wages in other countries cause all the jobs to go there, while lower wages for women don't cause all the jobs to go to women...

  • triclops||

    a truly amazing trick!

  • Devil's Advocate||

    Bingo. Proggies believe that corporations are evil and care only about profits, and they also claim that women are performing exactly the same work for less money. If that was the case, then why is female unemployment not at 0.0%? It is almost as if there are logical inconsistencies within their dogma.

  • Pro Libertate||

    The hypocrisy of this government is truly dizzying to perceive.

  • ||

    I'm already too dizzy from their incompetence and stupidity to notice.

  • Pro Libertate||

    My brain is all on the right side of my skull, from all the spinning going on.

  • Sudden||

    We're libertarians. Clearly we're just drunk with power.

  • Pro Libertate||

    [Falls over.]

  • ||

    Are the squirrels coughing up blood again?

  • Sudden||

    No, thats just the orphans. Conditions in the mine have been dusty ever since I started using more dynamite.

  • ||

    I'm having trouble posting more than single lines.

  • ||

    We can only be thankful.

  • ||

    Is that the royal 'we'?

  • John||

    This week, Senate Democrats are (again) considering the "Paycheck Fairness Act," which would require employers to submit pay information annually for all employees.

    And gee, I thought someone's salary is, short of their sex life, about the most personal information there is about them.

    Beyond that, the law would in practice just be a way for the government to bully employers to give preferential treatment of women at the expense of men. It would also further entrench the worst excesses of credentialism in our society. The fact that an employer pays a male employee more than a female employee because he works harder and is a better employee won't matter. Bureaucracies can't account for such fact specific nuance and these bureaucrats wouldn't want to even if they could. All that will matter is what the employees' credentials are. Equal credentials will mean government enforced equal pay, actual performance be damned.

    These people honestly think the way to have a competitive economy is for the government to dictate everyone's pay.

  • ||

    "These people honestly think the way to have a competitive economy is for the government to dictate everyone's pay."

    No, they don't. They know exactly what they are doing.

  • John||

    I don't think so. I think they are really this stupid. No one will be more surprised than them when our economy finally goes full on third world.

  • Zeb||

    I tend to agree with that.

    Failure to consider "unintended" consequences is an all too common problem. And it's the worst when the problem you are trying to solve is a made up problem to begin with.

  • John||

    When things go bad because of this, their reaction will be "you just can't have a capitalist economy anymore". It will never occur to them that they caused this.

  • sarcasmic||

    It will never occur to them that they caused this.

    How could they have? It was all done with good intentions. Just like that road to... I forget.

  • Devil's Advocate||

    Kenya?

  • Devil's Advocate||

    Perdition?

  • Devil's Advocate||

    Damascus?

  • Devil's Advocate||

    Dushanbe?

  • Paul.||

    They're the only ones qualified to fix the mess they created.

  • John||

    And it is your fault for not working with them to fix it Paul. Never forget that. When something they do goes wrong, it is the fault of the people who opposed that policy for not providing more constructive help to make it work.

  • Pulseguy||

    I sometimes forget that. Glad you reminded us. If I oppose a decision, and it turns out to be the wrong one, the fault is mine.

    It works for Obama and Obamacare.

  • ||

    You are slipping John. Slipping right back into hoping and wishing these people are not as evil as they seem.

    Once upon a time you said that you realized if you assume the worst about them you were right note times than not. Go with that.

    Wealth is empowering. If wealth is spread across society then power is spread across society. These people are all about concentrating power, which means they need to destroy the wealth spread across society and concentrate it in their own hands.

    They know exactly what they are doing.

  • ||

    'Note' was supposed to be 'more'

    Goddamn squirrels are driving me nuts this morning.

  • Dweebston||

    Don't blame squirrels for your swypos. More and note are swypographically identical.

  • ||

    The typo was fully mine, but it came about because I tried to post and then retype that comment three times, each time accompanied by more cursing out loud.

    Please don't alert me to the 'copy' function on my computer.

  • John||

    They are plenty evil. It is just that they are stupid too. The effect is the same either way. I do not believe, however, the hard left wants the country to be poor. I think they are so stupid and irrational, they don't know what they want.

    When you say that they have a plan to make America poor, you attribute a level of thoughtfulness and planning that they may have once possessed but no longer do. The old let before the 1960s were whatever their faults modern thinking people. They had a system of beliefs, they understood it, and they tried to apply it in a systematic and coherent way. Now, that set of beliefs was insane and contrary to reality, but it was at least internally consistent.

    The new left is nothing like that. They are not modern people. They are primitives. The have regressed to the state of primitive man. Primitive man, unlike modern man, can't think beyond the issue in front of him or create large coherent systems or work together in complex ways. That is the New Left. They don't have a plan and wouldn't know what to do with one if they had it. They only know a set of buzzwords and fanatical beliefs. How those beliefs relate to one another or even if they are contradictory is not something they are able to comprehend or concern themselves with. They just react to each situation as it arises.

    Here, the fanatical belief is "gender equity" So the solution is the government to enforce equity. That is as far as their thinking goes.

  • ||

    "...you attribute a level of thoughtfulness and planning that they may have once possessed but no longer do. "

    Two words: Global warming.

  • ||

    "Two words: Global warming.

    reply to this"

    Ok I will.

    Man made global warming is the money maker.

    As an outdoorsman and 50 year fisherman I can tell you for the truth that warm water species have been migrating north along the Texas coast for all of my fishing life.

  • B.P.||

    And, pace above, they think that wealth in North America is the natural order of things, and will not go away. Wealth, of course, comes from raping the land, imperialism, dad, luck, taking it from the poor, etc. When these folks finally regulate wealth creation out of existence, there will indeed be plenty of "Huh, how'd that happen?", along with attendant stupid theories. See also, certain cities/states at current time.

    (posted before, eaten by squirrels)

  • triclops||

    When neoliberalism was at its peak around the 90's, the Left let the neoliberals call the shots for a while. When that did not result in a worker's paradise and socialist utopia, the more insane left took over and that is why they babble on and on about market failure. The left exists now only as a collection of grievances without a unifying theory. The only ideas they can produce are the same ones discredited generations ago. They are coasting on the intellectual fumes of liberals from the past.

  • ||

    "Finally?" Dude, huge swaths of the country are already fully third world.

  • Paul.||

    When wasn't Cleveland third world?

  • ||

    Some are that stupid and some aren't.

    Those that aren't that stupid are the leaders of those that are that stupid.

  • ||

    Yeah. They're meddling, controlling, and exerting their power over anyone they can, just because they can, because that's what power-hungry scum live to do. How that affects things overall is irrelevant to them, seeing as they're sociopaths.

  • ||

    I agree with this. I work with a lot of guys who left school and just went into working at software companies as a developer because they were good and didn't see the need to keep on going to college.

    I can't think of a single female developer who did the same. Not saying that they aren't out there, but it seems to be a very guy thing to bail on school.

    The guys who don't have a degree are now hosed if this law gets passed. They already have to fight to get decent raises because the a-holes in HR are always telling them that without a degree "it is really hard to give you that raise." And that was just because they were cheap.

    With the threat of being sued if Joe Developer with no degree but a whiz at developing IOS apps gets paid more than Suzy Developer who has a real degree, there is no way they are going to pay Joe.

  • Zeb||

    Personally, I think it is a bit silly that salaries are considered so private. I can handle the fact that some people get paid more than I do.
    But having seen the stupid petty shit that can happen when people do find out about pay differences, I can understand why it is generally discouraged to discuss that sort of thing with co-workers. Requiring companies to allow that is just going to cause trouble, bitterness and envy, and probably a bunch of stupid lawsuits.

  • John||

    Personally, I think it is a bit silly that salaries are considered so private. I can handle the fact that some people get paid more than I do.

    I don't think it is silly at all. How much money you make can really affect your relationship with other people. If you don't make anything, people might look down on you. If you make a lot, people will get jealous. It is generally better to just leave the subject out of friendships. If it is not something you want your friends or casual acquaintances to know, it counts as private.

  • Zeb||

    It is certainly something you should keep private if you are concerned about that sort of thing. A mandate to make salaries common knowledge would be terrible. And I certainly understand the practical purpose of companies asking their employees not to discuss it with each other. But outside of work, how private and personal that information is will vary a lot.

  • Jordan||

    Yeah, I've always thought that was odd. Seems like a lingering aspect of Puritanism; wouldn't want to be seen as bragging or to shame anyone.

    My Chinese friends and family (by marriage) have no problem discussing salary.

  • ||

    Same with my Korean wife. They talk salary all the time.

    But again, none of us work at the same place.

  • ||

    During the dot com boom, some idiot in HR left a spread sheet out on a shared drive with everyone's salary.

    Before I saw it, I was happy with what I was getting paid. After seeing it, I realized that the guy who had run a half dozen projects straight into the ground (and that I had to come in and clean up after him) was making 10K more than me.

    When I bitched, I was told that he was an "experienced hire" (he ran a computer lab in his college, and that is what experienced hires were getting paid those boom times. Too bad for me that I had been working at the company for 4 years.

    I ended up blackmailing them into a raise, so it all worked out. But I think that everyone seeing what others are making is going to be a huge headache for HR and managers.

  • Brett L||

    Its all of the headaches of collective bargaining for management with none of the benefits.

  • ||

    Zeb, I would imagine most people here can handle it, but most here have a very different view of things than the average primate. In a population where the politics of envy is a successful strategy it might be best to just keep your salary to yourself.

  • Zeb||

    Oh sure. Which is why I accept that it is often necessary for employers to discourage salary discussion among employees as a practical matter. And if your friends put a lot of stock in how much money people make, you probably want to avoid it in your personal life too.

    All of the self esteem/everyone's a winner crap really doesn't help with this. Young people need to learn early that there will always be a bunch of people who are smarter, richer or better than they are and that's OK.

  • ||

    "...if your friends put a lot of stock in how much money people make, you probably want to avoid it in your personal life too."

    Getting new friends might be a better strategy.

  • Drake||

    Doesn't the IRS already get this data?

    Another regulation, another massive Human Resource / Accounting burden for American companies.

    Hard to believe the recovery is so slow and labor participation is so low.

  • John||

    Good point. The IRS already does. Of course, that is an argument against the income tax, not necessarily an argument for this.

  • sarcasmic||

  • ||

    We have a recovery?

  • Swiss Servator, Frühling?||

    Recovery Summer VI - The Revenge of Biden

  • The Original Jason||

    I think the Senate Democrats already forget that employers already submit that information in the form of W-2's.

    Just add a M/F line to the W-2 and the IRS will have all the information needed...

  • Loki||

    I thought someone's salary is, short of their sex life, about the most personal information there is about them.

    I suspect that's what they're really after anyway. The fact that they can use "FAIRNESS" and "WAR ON WYMENZ" bullshit as an excuse, and get their base all riled over kulture war crap right ahead of a midterm election is just icing on the crap cake.

    I'd be willing to bet that in a few years someone comes up with the brilliant idea of using the pay information to basically do everyone's taxes for them. It'll be pitched as "the tax code is so complex and taxes are so frustrating for many people, since we know everything about you anyway, we'll just take of care of all of that for you, that way you poor dears no longer have to trouble your little pointed heads about it anymore." Think about that and try to sleep tonight.

  • ||

    Huh. I thought that the government already collected that data by April 15 every year.

  • ||

    Frack. Missed the similar posts above.

  • OldMexican||

    This week, Senate Democrats are (again) considering the "Paycheck Fairness Act," which would require employers to submit pay information annually for all employees. How will this help shrink the wage gap? No one's been too specific about that.


    It will help by adding another big obstacle to all of those women-managed and women-founded companies that compete with the Big Boys who can afford the bigger HR budgets.

    Talk about a war on women - that would be it.

    But, hey, what's a little more bureaucracy when there's the spectacle of government action to uphold?


    Not unlike the awesome May 1st truck and tractor parades of the Soviet Union of old.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    These forces are certainly worth talking about. Why do women still flock to lower paying fields and positions?


    So long as these women are satisfied with their life choices, not your problem.

    How can women, men, and companies make having children less detrimental to women's careers?


    By having women continue to work full-time during and after pregnancy, so as to have the same level of experience as a similarly-situated man.

    Why does the wage gap widen for older women even when they don't have children?


    Because older women are even more likely than younger women to "flock to lower paying fields and positions".

    What did I win?

  • John||

    So long as these women are satisfied with their life choices, not your problem.

    THIS. It never seems to occur to these people that women might find other things in life like raising their children more rewarding than climbing the corporate ladder. Women don't have the same social pressure to be the breed winners that men do. They also put huge social pressure on each other regarding children. Moms can often be vicious to one another.

    A man who checks out and lets his wife make the big bucks while he settles for a low paying, low stress job is often, though less and less, subjected to a fair amount of social stigma. Women rarely are. Women are, unlike men, subjected to a ton of social stigma for not meeting the standards of other moms.

    It is not hard to figure out why women choose lower paying less demanding jobs, if you are paying any attention.

  • Ivan Pike||

    Women don't have the same social pressure to be the breed winners that men do.

    John, this is why I love reading your posts.

  • John||

    Now you see the inherit patriarchal sexism in my posts Ivan. Women are just breeders!!!

  • sarcasmic||

    breed wieners?

  • Zeb||

    When you think about it, in many ways women have more choices about career and life than men do. It is becoming more and more equal in that way, but women are still much more likely to be able to have the choice to be a stay at home parent or work part time.
    And even if you thing that most gender differences are social constructions, there is still the big biological one that there is no getting around: making babies, which most women seem to value quite a bit (and is obviously rather important to the continuation of the human race). Women today can choose if they want to do that. But you still can't have it both ways without big artificial ineffeciencies being imposed from above.

  • sarcasmic||

    O!
    M!
    G!
    I think this comment will post!

    This week, Senate Democrats are (again) considering the "Paycheck Fairness Act," which would require employers to submit pay information annually for all employees.

    select last_name || first_name as full_name, salary, employer from IRS order by employer, full_name;

    Done.

  • Jordan||

    drop database IRS;
    commit; -- DIE!

  • sarcasmic||

    I like your solution better.

  • ||

    I saw one of those idiot Facebook clickbait deals with lots of charts to show how horrible our society is (because Republicans). One of the graphs showed pay disparity by gender. Another one of them showed hours worked by salaried workers, broken out by gender. Quite a few less hours, on average, for females.

    It never occurred to the Obama-fellator that these two charts correlated...

  • Mickey Rat||

    A few years ago my sister was complaining that her company was hiring a position in the group she led and that the person was being offered more money then she was making. She insisted that the reason he was to be paid more than her even though she was to be his supervisor was because the new hire was a man. After talking to her for a while she said that the reason the company was hiring this position was because they wanted to utilize this specific software package that the guy was an expert on and my sister had no knowledge of. After mentioning this, she still thought he was being paid more because he was a guy. I did not feel like arguing the point because I had just gotten into town for Christmas and did not feel like having an argument.

    Some memes people just cannot let go of.

  • John||

    This is why the obsession with racism and sexism is self perpetuating. It is really hard to tell most of the time why someone does something. Hell, a lot of the time they can't explain it themselves. If you are conditioned to think the entire world is sexist or racist, however, you will attribute every decision that goes against you to the other person being racist or sexist.

  • sarcasmic||

    It is not uncommon for supervisors to make less money than the professionals they manage.

  • Rich||

    Yep. And it's not uncommon for that to be a point of contention.

  • From the Tundra||

    Particularly in a sales environment. If you have a really good salesperson, they will most likely make more than their managers, sometimes even upper management.

  • The Other Kevin||

    You know what other resident of the White House investigated a gender gap?

  • ||

    Depends on what you mean by 'gap'.

    If you mean a thigh gap I don't think Lewinski had one. She was kinda chubby.

  • ||

    "Paycheck Fairness Act,"

    When I read Atlas Shrugged as a kid, I thought she was being way over the top. Nobody would really be that dumb, right? WRONG.

  • Rich||

    But trotting out misleading statistics about women's wages not only fails to address these issues adequately, it actively works against addressing them. It makes things too simplistic, and thus given to simplistic solutions.

    Exactly. So forget the statistics, and just pay everyone the same.

  • John||

    Remember, they don't want a "simplistic solution". They just want the Feds looking at everyone's salary and making sure that men and women are paid equally. That would be complex and nuanced. It would never be a simplistic apples to oranges comparison. Trust them.

  • sarcasmic||

    They don't want a solution. They want control.

  • Rich||

    You're right. The best solution might be to tie this into the IRS monitoring of Democratcare participation.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Communism. Everyone is payed equally. Except the Vanguard.

  • Raston Bot||

    Control freaks gonna freak.

    Speaking of...

    http://www.aljazeera.com/video.....69925.html

    Venezuelans face up to using electronic rationing cards to combat the increasing lack of food in the country.

  • Rich||

    Can those cards be used as seashells toilet paper?

  • John||

    Shame on the people of Venezuela for not rebelling before things got that bad.

    If the military had shot that dumb bastard ten years ago, the western left would have had a stroke. Of course, if they had, things would be a lot better in Venezuela today than they are.

    Someone like Chavez or Mugabe or Castro puts good people in the terrible moral dilemma of becoming tyrants themselves to stop them or living under the worse tyranny they would create. There are no other alternatives since nothing will stop them short of shooting or imprisoning them.

  • Raston Bot||

    Maduro ramped up capital controls less than a year ago. Their collapse happened quickly. I get the feeling, after speaking at length with my neighbor's Venezuelan exchange student, that the violence is escalating between protestors and paramilitary within the cities. She heads back in a week and said she was scared. Obviously this is anecdotal and from a revolutionary.

  • John||

    The people of Venezuela are going to have to rise up and hang Mudoro and everyone associated with him. They are never going to give up power voluntarily and they are just going to get more and more oppressive as each crackpot scheme fails.

  • Raston Bot||

    What we'll probably see is some comparison between Chavez and Maduro that paints the former strongman as a brilliant leader and the latter as a tyrant/scapegoat.

  • ||

    My mother, who can only get the MSM on her TV, and thus only is able to watch the state run media, was telling me the other day how wonderful and innovative Venezuelan agriculture is and how she saw a report on some americans who went down there to study their methods.

    She also told me she saw reports on how much school children love Michelle Obamas new school lunches.

  • Zeb||

    And maybe they do have some interesting agricultural techniques. It's useless if you aren't growing what people want or need which is impossible in a command economy.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    And maybe they do have some interesting agricultural techniques.

    They may well have... however knowing socialist propaganda historically and knowing what little we do know about the internals of Venezuelan economy - it's much more likely that charitable organizations sent experts to help Venezuelans, but all those citizens saw were short clips showing westerners walking around farms with a new reports stating "Venezuelans showing westerners how to farm".

  • Fräulein Nikki||

    How can women, men, and companies make having children less detrimental to women's careers?

    Why is that anyone's job? If you want kids, you pay for them, just like with anything else. I mean how can my boss make it less detrimental to my career to live on the beach in Fiji? Should that be his job?

  • John||

    Why is that anyone's job?

    Because if a woman has to face the consequences of her choices, that is sexism Niki. The whole point of society is to make sure women never face any choice. Otherwise, they can't have it all.

    Just stop it with your mansplaining here. That is the patriarchy talking not you.

  • Fräulein Nikki||

    Nah it's just my mommy issues.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I could have a higher position making more money in my company if I had chose to move my family around the country, work 60 to 70 hour weeks and most importently take jobs I have no interest in doing. I CHOSE not to. Choice being the key word here. I'm happy for the people who made a different choice and are making more money. Good for them. We both win.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I should add that we're not exactly living in a cardboard box.

  • Zeb||

    Same here. I value having free time and living where I live over making more money.
    Many women value being a good mother and having flexibility over pure career advancement and making money.
    Both are equally choices. Women, of course, have unique abilities when it comes to having children which is bound to lead to some imbalance in employment and income unless you handicap people who choose not to have children. But each individual woman has the choice.

  • ||

    I'm considering throwing my principles out the window because this executive order thingie His Holiness is about to sign applies to Fed contractors. Then maybe I can sue to make the same as the people here that have way more technical skills than I do - after all, we're doing the same job!!

    In fact, I should get paid the same as my boss, because I seem to spend an inordinate amount of time doing PM work rather than HTML and CSS.

    I'll be rich, I tells ya! RICH!

  • From the Tundra||

    The only thing better than a libertarian woman is a *rich* libertarian woman.

    You'll need an entourage, stat!

  • PM||

    Rich libertarian is obviously redundant. It's just the Koch's and Peter Thiel at every meeting.

  • ||

    If any of the people you are talking about supported Obozo then I would say you should not only do that, but demand that your raise be retroactive.

  • ||

    We have a very strong libertarian/conservative vibe in my office, believe it or not. The vast majority of these assholes are pure unprincipled bureaucrat garbage, but I'd say there are more than 3 conservatives on my team of 20. One of them is our government boss - he usually doesn't waste an opportunity to subtly jab His Oneness.

  • Loki||

    How about we just make everyone, male and female, get paid the same, regardless of job title/ duties. Because fairness. /sarc

  • ||

    Haven't you heard? They have been floating the idea of a basic income guarantee for a while now. If they get it then that is exactly what it will turn into.

  • R C Dean||

    Here's hoping some CEO has the balls to make the following announcement:

    "Under the new law, we will be cutting the pay of everyone in the organization to the level of the lowest paid person in their job description, and all raises will be given in lockstep. The company's savings from this move will be distributed in equal amounts to all employees in a single bonus check. Sorry we have to do this, but its the only way we can keep the company open without risking a ruinous lawsuit from a disgruntled female employee."

  • Zeb||

    That would be great. How do people not see that this sort of thing is just inviting tons of lawsuits. I'm sure some people see that as a plus, but a lot of people I point that out to never seem to have considered that inevitable outcome. They just think that making a law makes things happen.

  • sarcasmic||

    Adopt union rules?

  • cherrycupitmye||

    Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income... You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection... Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up... You can have your first check by the end of this week............
    http://www.Works23.us

  • chmercier||

    So, basically Obama and the Dems will do what they did with contraceptives in 2012: make a big fuss about it, "War on Women" to make any opposition seem sexist...and then when they get elected/reelected, do the opposite of what they claim.

    Huh. Remember when the Dems did that whole dance about birth control and health care in 2012, then turned around and said no to OTC and anyone younger than 18 being able to get BC?

    Feint with the left and cross with the right. That's the Dems' trick.

    Oh, unintended consequence of stuff like this? Less women hires for entry level positions. A lot of businesses and government bureaus would hire "just enough" women to prevent discrimination lawsuits. In fact, government would probably be the worst perpetrator, but you know, it's okay for them, 'cause it's different, FYTW.

    Sigh.

  • ephor209||

    What about the private/public sector wage gap? Public sector employees make about $1.30 to $2 for every $1 earned on the private side. I don't think those paychecks are fair when taxpayers have to pay higher than market wages and then foot the bill for enormous pensions that can't even be paid out. It makes no sense when the employers (taxpayers) make less than the employees (public sector) for the same work that is way more fragile position to keep.

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    pandering to women who are stupid enough or greedy enough to believe that there is a wage gap.
    Women have equal pay when they have the same qualifications and produce the same amount and quality of work as men. Frequently they do not so that is why they are paid less
    The farther we get from a meritocracy the worse the country gets.

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    Notice that nobody is talking about affirmative action requirements that get women and minorities hired over equally or more qualified men in the first place. White men are the only minority group you can legally discriminate against. Yes they are a minority - there are more women in the country than men.
    Same for government contracts- women owned and minority owned get a preference here too.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online