MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

There's a New Wage-Gap Myth Going Around and It Makes Women's Work Life Look Grim

But don't believe the dire diagnosis. New research shows a mixed bag of pay patterns for women—and men—over the past 50 years.

Richard B. Levine/NewscomRichard B. Levine/NewscomStarting last week, fresh alarm about a pay gap between men and women started percolating, spurred by a new report from the Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR). The group suggests that wage disparities between U.S. women and men are more severe than we previously knew. Forget the adage that women only make about 80 cents to every dollar a man does—in actuality, it's more like 49 cents for every dollar, IWPR says.

Most media outlets have been reporting the research credulously and with little context. "Women don't earn 80% of what men earn. The true number is closer to 50%," states Felix Salmon at Axios, for instance. Fortune reports: "In 2016, women reportedly earned 80 cents to the average man's dollar. However [...] a woman today earns just 49 cents compared to the average man's dollar."

But whether it's presented as a revision to previous data or some sort of new trend, this statistic is misleading. Like a lot of previous studies on the gender wage gap, IWPR's new work doesn't actually compare whether "equal work" by women and men earns equal pay. It doesn't look at earnings between men and women in the same or substantially similar jobs, take into account number of working hours, or break down wage gaps by industry or age.

In other words, it doesn't do any of the things that would be useful for measuring and interpreting the data. It doesn't tells us anything about the thing that really matters, which is (conscious and unconscious) gender bias in the workplace and the prevalence of discriminatory pay rates. Which is also to say that it doesn't tell us anything about the things people are pretending it does.

Not that you would know that from IWPR's marketing of the report, which it has titled "Still a Man's Labor Market."

"Our analysis finds that we have actually been underestimating the extent of pay inequality in the labor market," said Heidi Hartmann, IWPR's president and co-author of the report, while dismissing wage gap explanations that rely on "occupational differences or so-called 'women's choices.'"

But of course occupational differences matter when measuring pay. Few people think a surgeon should get paid the same as a grocery store cashier, or that someone who works 50 hours a week should earn the same as someone putting in 20 hours at the same job. And outside of certain fashionably progressive circles, most would say the same even when this results in lower lifetime wages for individual women or puts a dent in women's wage averages.

It's certainly worth exploring why women-heavy sectors often offer lower pay rates, why women gravitate toward lower paying occupations, and what other factors may play a role in depressing women's earnings relative to male peers. But we can't consider these things without precise and holistic data, or by looking at the workforce from only one angle.

In this case, Hartmann and co-author Stephen J. Rose looked at a longitudinal dataset from 2001-2015, measure average annual earnings across the period for people who worked any amount during any of these years, and then compared the averages for male and female workers overall as well as different subsets of men and women. Annual earnings were "defined as the personal average over multiple years and count only years with earnings."

Overall, "women workers' earnings were 49 percent—less than half—of men's earnings, a wage gap of 51 percent in 2015," the authors conclude.

It's by lumping together the full spectrum of workers (from those employed full-time, year-around for all 15 years of the study period to those who only worked part-time, or sporadically, throughout the period) that they're able to reach this dramatic conclusion on the gender wage gap. The authors admit that "the earnings gap across the most recent 15 years for those who generally work full-time, year-round in this study is similar to the more commonly used one-year numbers from the same years (23 percent)."

But when you take the data out of its ideological framing, there are some interesting findings in the new IWPR report.

In many ways, the picture has gotten progressively better for women over the past 50 years. During the first period (from 1968 through 1982), only 28 percent of women worked every year—a rate that rose to 57 percent in the latest period (from 2001 through 2015).

Average annual earnings among female workers rose whether they did or didn't take any gap years:

  • For women with no work gap years, average annual wages rose 57 percent, from $24,558 in the first period to $38,649 in the latest (all dollar amounts "adjusted to 2015 using the Personal Consumption Expenditure (PCE) price deflator").
  • Those who took four or more years off saw average annual earnings rise 51 percent, from $9,001 in the first period to $13,585 in the latest.
  • For women overall, annual wages rose from $14,379 in the first period to $28,683 in the latest period (up 99 percent).

And "overall, women's typical hourly wages increased by 45 percent from the first to the third period (from $11.51 per hour to $16.65 per hour)."

Meanwhile, men saw hourly wages remaining "almost flat across the nearly 50 years of this study"—one of many bad indicators for male employment, even as men continue to outpace women in earnings and workforce participation.

Among men, some 77 percent worked every year in the latest study period, down 11 points from the first study period. Most of the drop here happened in the 1983-1997 period, during which the percentage of men who worked every year shrunk to 76 percent.

Average annual earnings among male workers either dropped or rose a modest amount depending on worker category:

  • Men employed full-time for most of the study period made an average of $53,863 annually during the 1968-1982 iteration, a figure that rose 7 percent to $57,798 for their counterparts in 2001-2015.
  • For men with four or more years off, wages went down 16 percent, from $29,422 to $24,832 per year.
  • For all male workers, average annual wages fell two percent, from $51,575 to $50,442.

From where I'm looking, the picture is far from perfect for either men or women. Women were starting from a much lower place with regard to workforce numbers and wages, and remain behind men in both areas. But while women's participation and wages have been rising, men's wages have flattened or decreased over the past five decades in many cases and they're seeing shrinking workforce participation rates.

Looking at men's work is important even when just considering women's workforce gains, as it provides vital perspective on the numbers. Consistent, full-time, year-around labor participation is perhaps lower for both women and men than many realize.

The study defines strong labor force attachment as working full-time year-round for at least 12 of 15 years; moderate attachment as working some every year but fewer than 12 years of full-time year-round employment; and weak attachment as anyone who earned nothing for at least one of those 15 years. Among women, strong attachments rose from 11 to 28 percent since the start of the study period while weak attachments shrunk from 72 to 43 percent. But among men, strong attachment fell from 75 to 59 percent while weak attachment rose from 12 to 23 percent. "Women with weak attachment show the greatest increase in hours of work among women, while their male counterparts show the largest decrease," the study notes. During the latest study period, women with strong attachment worked an average of five fewer hours per week than male counterparts.

And while women have seen an increasing wage penalty for taking time off, men are seeing the same thing. For women in '68-82, a year off during the 15 year period meant about $3,000 less in average annual wages. By the next period, it was closer to a $10,000 difference and by the latest, more than $15,200. For men, a gap year in work meant earning about $8,600 less in the first period and nearly $12,400 less in the second period. For 2001-2015, it meant more than $22,300 less in average annual earnings.

Photo Credit: Richard B. Levine/Newscom

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.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Start your own business, screw working for paychecks.

  • Juice||

    Oi, where's your loicense?

  • lap83||

    This is the sort of advice feminists would actually give if they cared about the success of women, but it doesn't feel as good as virtue signaling and fantasizing about communism

  • BruceMajors||

    Since Heidi Hartman has made a career off pushing the same stupid notion since 1975, she is clearly an entrepreneur of sorts, laughing all the way to the bank.

  • BigT||

    "And "overall, women's typical hourly wages increased by 45 percent from the first to the third period (from $11.51 per hour to $16.65 per hour)."
    Meanwhile, men saw hourly wages remaining "almost flat across the nearly 50 years of this study"

    They took our jobs!!

  • ByteRot||

    I mean, you joke, but consider that we've nearly doubled the relative supply of labor in the last 50 years thanks to all those empowered women getting jobs and becoming two-income households. So the household income probably looks fine, but the wage stagnation it's caused is the dirty underbelly of women's lib.

    It gets worse, too, because two-income households are less geographically mobile, which has had a retarding effect on the ability for people to engage in job markets further afield from where they currently reside, reducing the competitiveness of job markets everywhere.

  • BigT||

    "Start your own business, screwing for paychecks"

    FIFY

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I've thought about relocating to Nevada and integrating sexual services into the employment contract of the hot young assistant I hire.

  • Pepys the Cat||

    I don't care. I'm not responsible for how much you get paid, so stop trying to outsource the responsibility to me.

  • TJJ2000||

    +100 Pepys the Cat; Sooo Perfectly said.....

    This new era of the Victim Olympics where the game winners are granted legal certificate to "outsource" their individual responsibilities onto the rest of society through communism really isn't any different than left-supported slavery.

    Both entail the legal FORCING (keyword) of one person into working for someone else's gain which is obviously more than what they would pay by free will or FORCE wouldn't be needed. As the old saying goes, "Its only worth what others will pay you for it."

  • Jerryskids||

    If you think the pay gap between men and women is bad, you should see the pay gap between black people and white people and the pay gap between gays and straights and the pay gap between people named Jerryskids and people not named Jerryskids.

  • Juice||

    Gays make more on average. Gotta get more straights into higher paying jobs. Maybe we need a government program.

  • Jerryskids||

    Nobody's talking about "on average", we're just talking about gross numbers. All the earnings of straight people versus all the earnings of gay people.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Or we could just use it as an excuse to get rid of Tony. Although it sounds like he doesn't actually work.

  • BruceMajors||

    That's true.

    But we have such better taste in everything from shoes to restaurants to vacations that we really need it.

  • ||

    This is usually a fallacy and/or a study/binning problem. The cream of the crop of the LGBT community makes something like 5% more on average some of the time. The average of the LGBT community is below national averages pretty consistently.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Too many starving artists

  • vek||

    Not from data I have seen... Maybe including lesbians? I've seen, numerous times over the years, that the AVERAGE income for a gay man is considerably higher than for straight men. IIRC it was something like an $8-10K a year gap, which is damn near 20%. Too lazy to Google, but I've seen figures along those lines multiple times, from different studies.

  • Cy||

    It's almost as if identity politics is divisive, the key is knowing how to control the crowds once they're divided.

  • CGN||

    I'll take what Jerryskids says as the sarcasm it is meant to be. Women DO NOT get paid less for the same job, but they DO MAKE LESS due to their choices of jobs, and the number of hours they wish, or don't wish, to work. Example: I, and all of the other men at a place I worked before I moved, were in earlier, and worked later than ALL the women, and this was the case even though the wages were NOT hourly. The women came in later, left earlier, took more time off, both given time off (holidays, etc.) and time they either phoned in sick, or stayed home with a sick kid. There is nothing wrong with this, but don't expect to be paid the same as those who did NOT do this.

  • Overt||

    I don't think this is true across the board. At my wife's company, they did a cross sectional analysis and found that the company tended to bring men in at a higher level than women, even when you control for experience and performance. These were people doing the exact same work- they were hired to perform a specific job duty. However the women on average were hired at job-level foo and the men were hired in at job level foo +1. Again, this study corrected for things like hours worked, years outside of the workforce, education and performance.

    While there are many possible and legitimate reasons for this (one popular one is that men are harder negotiators, another is that there is bias in assigning job levels), it is still quantifiable proof that women are being paid less to do the same work.

    I am not trying to moralize on this, but just pointing out a fact you may be unaware of.

  • Freddy M||

    I think you're making all of that up, and it doesn't matter anyway because actual peer reviewed studies show the opposite.

  • Overt||

    peer reviewed studies show the opposite.

    Actually, the peer reviewed studies I am aware of do no such thing. They do exactly what this company originally did- they look at the salaries of a bunch of people in a certain job level, and compare them. This led the company to spout in its PR "Hey, our women make as much in their positions as the men in the same position."

    Another group looked at the same data and said, "Hey, why do women in these job levels tend to have better education, and more experience?" They then drilled into these results to find out that there was a disparity in job levels offered for the same positions. In this company specifically, they could analyze job requisition histories, and they found that a requisition for a job level was more likely to go through an approval process for upping the job level if you were a man.

    It is not shocking that the big cross sectional studies can't tease out this issue- they are not going to have that level of detail in their big surveys.

  • vek||

    Bullocks. There is evidence men start at higher salaries, the negotiation thing is probably the reason... Women aren't assertive.

    But when controlled over time, for hours worked, how they're rated by bosses, etc etc etc, men and women always come out within literally a couple percent of the same income.

    It is a known fact women work less, take more vacations, etc than men. PERIOD. These things effect pay. As an employer, I know I would sure as shit pay somebody who busted ass more than somebody who slacked. That's just the way the universe works.

    Any study that has shown a major difference did not account for basic things like the above, and any study that does account for common sense things shows a virtually non existent wage gap. Anybody who says otherwise hasn't looked at the studies, or is willfully lying.

  • buddhastalin||

    Since there's a higher chance of a woman taking maternity leave in the future compared to a man taking paternity leave, the present value of a female employee at the hiring stage will be lower than that of a male, all other things being equal.

  • Overt||

    Since there's a higher chance of a woman taking maternity leave in the future compared to a man taking paternity leave, the present value of a female employee at the hiring stage will be lower than that of a male, all other things being equal.

    And this is gender bias. There is a difference between saying "women tend to make less because as a whole they work less hours" and saying "I am going to hire this woman at a lower level merely because she has a uterus that she may use one day." The former is trying to explain a trend by looking at actual statistics, and the other is making a career decision based on characteristics of a group they belong to.

    And again, my point was that these women were hired at a lower job level, which is based on perception of their past (experience, education, performance) rather than whether you think they are going to pop a baby out in 3 years.

  • BYODB||

    It is gender bias, and unfortunately for women who pushed for more and more benefits it's also a cost of hiring women that will be reflected somewhere since it's an extra labor cost. I'm a huge proponent of letting employee's 'opt out' of various programs and take the company savings and put it into their salary, personally, but it's curious that paternity leave is virtually non-existent while maternity leave is mandatory.


    And no, my 'solution' isn't to add paternity leave but rather to get rid of maternity leave entirely. Since that will never happen, I guess the only solution is more federal spending eh? And that is how the ratchet becomes ever-tighter.

  • BigT||

    Maternity leave is taken at home recovering and bonding with the kid. Paternity leave is taken at the golf course bonding with cronies.

  • DarrenM||

    But suppose you don't play golf. I've really missed out.

  • CLM1227||

    I agree with you, but I am hesitant to believe women who bargain for maternity leave at a lower wage would actually be employable.

    I would like to see far more freedom of contract in general and less boiler-plate contracts, though. Bargain away some of the useless benefits on offer.

    It also opens the door for voluntarily accepting a lower than minimum wage job.

  • Mickey Rat||

    You may call that gender bias, but it is also statistically and actuarially accurate. People making plans have to take into account what is statistically likely to happen.

  • Zeb||

    That's probably true, but it's still gender bias. A lot of the time, biases are reasonable and well founded.
    It still stinks if you are a woman who can't or isn't going to have any children and it affects your career. Assuming that the phenomenon Overt describes is common.
    My answer would be to get rid of mandated benefits that make employing women more expensive on average.

  • ShotgunJimbo||

    We have a one bias when we hire partners into our group: can they carry their weight, and do we have to carry it for them. It is 100% a meritocracy, and I couldn't be happier that it is as such.

    Are you a cis-white-"priveleged" (lol)-member of the patriarchy?! If so you will have to work 50-60 hours per week, take 2 calls each week, and take 1-2 weekend calls per month.

    Are you a trans-gender-zee-zir-or woman of child bearing age? Well if so...you will still have to work 50-60 hours per week, take 2 calls each week, and take 1-2 weekend calls per month.

    If you can't hack it, you don't get the job or are replaced. Doesn't matter what the excuse (kids, family, health status). Money is split up even. You make more by taking people's call for money.

    We don't ask the women interviewing if they are going to be having kids. We give them the above facts, and they know whether or not they can make it work while having kids.

  • ShotgunJimbo||

    It's a high paying job, and because of the hours and call required very few women apply, and the ones that interview quickly realize they have to get what we in medicine call a "mommy track" job; 7-3, no overnight, no weekend, much less pay. Analogous things happen everywhere in the job market.

    We do have 1 woman in our group. She makes....you guessed it...EXACTLY what the other partners make, because she takes the exact same amount of call and weekends. She herself literally said one of the women interviewing would have no chance making it since she was fresh out of residency, ready to have kids. Didn't have to worry about that though, that applicant took a lower paying job in academia before we had even finished interviews. Took a job where they were able to get her into a half time mommy track. Equal pay is a joke on so many levels.

  • Longtobefree||

    illegal interview questions: Do you have kids? Are you married?
    legal interview question: Is there anything in your personal life that would prevent occasional unscheduled overtime?

  • Overt||

    Since there's a higher chance of a woman taking maternity leave in the future compared to a man taking paternity leave, the present value of a female employee at the hiring stage will be lower than that of a male, all other things being equal.

    And this is gender bias. There is a difference between saying "women tend to make less because as a whole they work less hours" and saying "I am going to hire this woman at a lower level merely because she has a uterus that she may use one day." The former is trying to explain a trend by looking at actual statistics, and the other is making a career decision based on characteristics of a group they belong to.

    And again, my point was that these women were hired at a lower job level, which is based on perception of their past (experience, education, performance) rather than whether you think they are going to pop a baby out in 3 years.

  • Sevo||

    So long as you define any market decisions based on what might happen as "bias", it's not surprising you find "bias" all over.

  • Zeb||

    I'm pretty sure it falls under the common definition of bias. There is nothing in the definition of "bias" that says there can't be good reasons behind certain biases.

  • BigT||

    Blind bus drivers agree.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Leftism is always based off the concept of using claimed oppressor/victim relationships to justify a 'free lunch'.

  • vek||

    But is it UNFAIR?

    The answer is no. If an employer decides to hire somebody with a physical handicap, who cannot be as efficient as an able person... But they have to pay them less money because of their handicap... Is that unreasonable?

    NO. It makes perfect sense. And so does paying salaried women less. The stats are clear: fewer hours, more vacation, more sick days, AND they usually drop out to have kids. In no sane world should such an employee make the same as somebody who works more, doesn't call in sick, takes fewer vacations, and won't dip out on your dime for months or a year or more.

    The answer is to NOT require maternity leave, and then people who use it can suffer the consequences, and people who don't won't. In effect now it is a transfer between those that actually work as hard as men and don't take time off, and the more statistically average women who does slack and takes time off for kids. That's not fair to the ones that bust ass!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Did they factor in that women are notorious for not aggressively negotiating starting salaries and benefits?

    Women seem to wait for a company to give them raises rather than fight for raises or quit.

    **Sometimes biology differences between men and women requires more effort to get the desired outcomes.**

  • Chipper Jones||

    I assume your wife's company then smartly concluded that it makes no sense to hire men given that they can get equally qualified women for a much lower price. Right?

  • Zeb||

    Not in today's engineering job market.

  • Ben of Houston||

    How about we take a simple example.

    I work in heavy industry. 95%+ of my coworkers are men due to the hours, especially the requirements for night work and work in emergencies. A substantial fraction of our wives are teachers. They get paid roughly half of what we do, but have superior benefits in that they consistently have time off when our children are off. A large fraction of the remainder are unemployed or part timers.

    Due to our culture, this is a very common arrangement, which is why primary and secondary education is well over 80% female. The woman tends to take the lesser paying job with more time off due to childcare.

  • Bill||

    So the pay gap is your fault!!

  • Ben of Houston||

    Yes, actually it is.

    This is why analyzing the country as a whole shows such an insane gap. Women tend to take far lower paying jobs than men in exchange for benefits and hours. Looking at individual companies or industries drastically shrinks this.

  • Juice||

    It's certainly worth exploring why women-heavy sectors often offer lower pay rates, why women gravitate toward lower paying occupations, and what other factors may play a role in depressing women's earnings relative to male peers. But we can't consider these things without precise and holistic data, or by looking at the workforce from only one angle.

    Sounds like it's a cultural issue. Libertarians don't care about that.

  • Jerryskids||

    And it's hard to quantify quality-of-life decisions. Low-pay jobs tend to be low-skill and high-turnover jobs as well, meaning you can easily start and quit jobs as it suits you. It's a trade-off having a better-paying job, there's often more responsibility and more commitment to the job. Not everybody wants to feel tied down that way.

  • BruceMajors||

    I believe that female porn starts generally make more than male porn stars, for sucking the exact same quantity and quality of cock.

  • itsjustbob||

    Especially is said cock is attached to future President of the United States

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Ron Jeremy once said that after thirty years I'm the business that a new girl fresh off the street out earns him in a porn shoot. Gay porn apparently pays better though, but straight male porn stars make the least of anyone.

    This is the future that progressives seek for all white males.

  • Bill||

    It's almost like you don't have to pay straight men much
    to have sex with women and get their junk attended to.

  • Qsl||

    If it is a cultural issue, then you are looking at upending one of the tenets of economics -supply and demand- for sociology. Even better, you can make the application selective to a group.

    If true, this would cast doubt on many libertarian sacred cows, short of freedom of association.

    I think libertarians would be very interested in that.

  • Juice||

    Culture and economics (choices made by humans) go hand in hand.

  • Qsl||

    Ahhhh, depends.

    If you go the Jared Diamond route, culture is a byproduct of environment; little more than a shorthand of best practices given a set of inputs and ingenuity. Same applies to a economics by degree, but it is much harder to make that argument to something as universal as labor.

    And of course economics delves heavily into the costs of those choices, something culture never has to grapple with short of thinking flatulence symphonies are bound to break into the cultural zeitgeist any day now.

    Let's not loose all granularity.

  • Overt||

    Someone has been reading a terrible Postrel article.

  • Juice||

    I didn't read it past the "libertarians don't care about culture" line.

  • Overt||

    If it is a cultural issue, then you are looking at upending one of the tenets of economics -supply and demand- for sociology.

    There is no upending needed here. Both work. If the market has higher demand for men to do a job, they will be paid more. And certainly, in a biased culture, you would expect this to happen. If all the men in a company prefer not to work with women, then the woman will have to sell her services at a comparatively lower rate to get the job.

    The question is why the purchasers don't want to pay as much for women. It could be because of factors like those described: women tend to have less experience, spend more time with the family and less time at work, etc. Or it could be because of bias- and this runs a full spectrum- it could be conscious ("Those women should be at home cooking dinner!") or much more subtle ("I don't know...there is something about that candidate that makes me think she won't fit in on our team. She doesn't get our humor, and I don't think the other guys are going to follow her lead")

    The question isn't about upending supply and demand. It is about demand creation. If there is bias, then why, and what should we do about it. I definitely think scolding men about what a bunch of assholes they are isn't going to improve things.

  • Qsl||

    Ummm, no.

    If it is specific to hiring only men to do a job, the pay or other advantage must be higher than all other work men could possibly do. Witness companies offering women more to entice them to work in specific fields. You'd have to explain why that doesn't also apply to men across the majority of jobs if you are looking to hire them exclusively. Not every market is a labor surplus.

    Further, any type of bias would need to be near universal in its application over time. The Irish, for example, were contemptuously held beneath Negros in their day and yet somehow that social status could not hold in all instances, which is how they managed to break most boundaries in the labor market. You'd have to explain what cultural force is holding women back compared to a group who were held beneath slaves.

    I have no doubt there is bias, but not a universal bias that has held for centuries, across the most most fields, regardless of labor conditions, and is still manifest yet unable to be named.

    Especially now, where markets are far more competitive than they have ever been; I fail to see any business being able to maintain the luxury of hiring only men for positions and not being bankrupt before too long.

    But I could be wrong. I leave it to you to explain why.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    +100 Overt.

  • vek||

    The fact is, women are not as interested in many types of work. They're also literally not as good as men in many fields. Perhaps because of interest and work habits, perhaps because of innate differences. Studies have shown men are far better at focusing on a singular complex task than women, whereas women are better at dealing with several things at once.

    Which is more valuable: Waiting tables, or designing rocket engines?

    Not to mention that many other skills differences have been observed universally, language skills for women versus math skills for men. People like to pretend they're because of culture, etc... But since they show up in every single culture on earth, methinks they're biological.

    Whatever minor bias may exist in modern America, it is small and not important. Differences in skills, whether natural or artificial, explain all gaps IMO.

  • Zeb||

    Sounds like it's a cultural issue. Libertarians don't care about that.

    Well, libertarians qua libertarians don't care about that. But being a libertarian doesn't mean you don't care about anything other than libertarian principle.

  • Lee Moore||

    It's certainly worth exploring why women-heavy sectors often offer lower pay rates, why women gravitate toward lower paying occupations, and what other factors may play a role in depressing women's earnings relative to male peers.

    No doubt there are plenty of reasons, but the most obvious though also the most relentlessly overlooked is ...supply and demand. Men are undoubtedly more willing to do dirty, outdoor, physically demanding and dangerous jobs that women are less willing to do. Men are also just as happy as women to do clean, indoor, physically undemanding and safe jobs.
    Consequently there is a greater supply of labor available for the clean indoor jobs than the dirty outdoor jobs. Therefore, all other things being equal, the dirty outoor jobs will pay more. You need to pay more to attract the necessary labor.

    But - and here's the key point - this argument does not depend on dirty outdoor jobs being somehow "less desirable" on account of their intrinsic qualities of dirtyness and outdooryness. It is sufficient that they are less desired. And the supply and demand effect on wages will be just the same for any job that is less desired, for whatever reason.
    All you need to get a gender pay gap because of different job choices is greater female pickiness about what sort of job to take. As soon as you get that the jobs that females don't want will tend to pay more. Dirty, dangerous or not.

  • Lee Moore||

    Nor is thiis just a sex thing. Any job that only a few men want to do, will all other things being equal, pay more than a job that lots of men want to do.

  • Longtobefree||

    So if women played football, and men were cheerleaders, the existing pay scales would remain?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Is it,lingerie football?

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "Few people think a surgeon should get paid the same as a grocery store cashier, or that someone who works 50 hours a week should earn the same as someone putting in 20 hours at the same job."

    Well, I guess you can infer that Heidi Hartmann does.

  • Cy||

    The PoundMeToo movement is going to see a lasting backlash in every professional industry. I'm curious to see what is going to turn the pendulum.

  • The Last American Hero||

    The wrong sort of person getting hung by it. That is how every other witch hunt ended.

  • Magnitogorsk||

    Meanwhile in my field women are getting $20k diversity hire bonuses and free rides to top universities

  • TJJ2000||

    "Meanwhile in my field women are getting $20k diversity hire bonuses and free rides to top universities"

    +Magnitogorsk; Right... Great Comment! Funny how no one needs a "study perfectly adjusted by 3 of the 350 million US citizens" to know that speaks the truth.

  • KevinP||

    What's the deal with Axios? It is a serious and balanced site to get news and info? Or is it just another Mic / Vox clone?

  • CGN||

    The pay gap is the typical leftist / progressive bullshit. The women I've worked with for the most part work less hours, don't have nearly the experience and knowledge of the job I do, and they have, for the most part, something they value over more money, e.g., working less hours to have more time with the kids,

  • Overt||

    My experiences are completely different. The wife and I work in the same (tech) industry. She works, by far, more than me. And it is because of gender bias. I can walk into a room, make some guy jokes and get to business discussing action plans. When she walks into the room, she has to spend weeks building credibility with engineers who naturally think she doesn't know what she is talking about. It isn't overtly because she is a woman, but because she isn't one of "them". It just so happens that "them" is a bunch of guys, and her being female makes her different enough that she has to build credibility.

    Seriously, I thought like you, until I watched my wife go through 20 years of this. She goes into a job, and spends months getting people to take her ideas seriously, and a few years down the road, most of those hard nosed, analytical engineers who gave her the most shit are fighting to get her to jump to the company she is at.

    My problem is that there isn't much you can do about this. You can recognize the problem for what it is, and consciously try to put your biases aside. My wife has dealt with it by working harder than anyone I know, crying on my shoulder at nights and then going in the next day to make more progress. Or you can try to legislate and punish people for human nature, which will make everyone more resentful, and possibly reenforce the notion that any woman they talk to is incompetent and present merely because of "diversity programs".

  • BYODB||


    You can recognize the problem for what it is, and consciously try to put your biases aside.

    That is all you can do, but it's also possible that your wife isn't a very good...whatever it is she does. Or at the very least isn't willing to cut the throats of her co-workers to get her way, even while you have made it pretty clear that they are the types who are willing to cut throats to get what they want.

  • Overt||

    That is all you can do, but it's also possible that your wife isn't a very good...whatever it is she does.

    I can guarantee you she is quite good at what she does. And my personal, anonymous assertion should be enough to cary the day, right?

    Seriously though, I considered this fact. For many years, I would listen incredulously to her stories and think she must be doing it wrong. Sometimes after drinking liberally, I might have had the temerity to suggest as much.

    My mind was changed as I watched her progression over the last two big job changes. She changed jobs twice because engineers from previous rolls brought her into their company. These engineers were some of her biggest pain points, but over a period of years they sought her out they knew she was one of very few people they could trust to get work done right. It wasn't because she was new at her job and needed to get her feet wet- even engineers who started projects after she was in her job for several years. She'd come into a room, explain the way things were, and those people would then go to her boss, or a lead developer on her team and hear the same story before they would believe it. After a year of building their respect, these guys would move heaven and earth to try and get her onto their teams.

    I am friends now with several of these engineers, and they are still quite misogynistic. The difference is that my wife has proven to them what they take for granted with men.

  • Overt||

    Over the last several years really internalizing my wife's efforts, I started looking at my own company. And the sea change over the past 20 years has been quite dramatic. In the dot-com days, tech companies were frat houses. If you want to know the depths of depravity the male ego can reach, look no further than tech shops where 20-something males worked hard, and played hard. "Hostile Workplace" doesn't even begin to describe the nasty dirty jokes, the managers who were harassing admins, and the levels of testosterone rolling out our web 1.0.

    In many ways, I think a lot of the PC culture was a reaction to those hostile work places- they have just continued to turn the screws as the hostility has gone down. 20 years ago, I remember walking into a meeting and listening for 20 minutes as people talked about fisting and strip clubs, and a manager was notorious for sleeping with subordinates. Today, an engineer may get reprimanded for quipping that one of his colleagues was "bitching like a little girl". Both of those have no place in a workplace inclusive of women, but PC culture treats them the same.

    As I noted above, there is a supply and demand problem here. On the supply side, what woman would want a career where they hear woman-degrading jokes all day or where they are always getting condescended to? On the demand side, men spending more time with female colleagues will more easily picture women fitting into their team.

  • BYODB||

    I'm the only man in my department and it's been that way for about 20 years, and most of them make more than I do. Times I've cried about being treated like 'one of the girls'? Zero.

  • The Last American Hero||

    If only there weren't laws prohibiting women from starting their own tech companies.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its not right to judge everyone the same but some women did get jobs above their ability.

    Sexual harassment lawsuits really took a toll on being able to call out women for being stupid like you can with a man.

    All this factors in and is rarely considered part of the equation as to why women might not earn as much each year.

    Sometimes its just asshole bosses who want to pay women less instead of what they are really worth.

  • Overt||

    This is why I generally resist the punitive measures of diversity programs. As I note above, I firmly believe that there is a problem in the tech space. But I don't believe it is from open hostility, but just from people being comfortable around their own kind- and in the case of technology, you generally have men who grew up being interested with computers like other boys, went to school with other young men, and then started their careers with other men.

    I am the first to say that men and women are different animals. Dealing with women requires a different style and skills. Not better, not worse, but different. I've watched these engineers wail like little girls (natch!) when I change technology on them. The need to change habits and "muscle memory" to use a fundamentally different language, API, ticketing system, or tool inevitably leads to complaints that the previous way was "better". In reality it was just different. And many male engineers have the same problem with women working along side them. It requires changing their social habits in uncomfortable ways.

    And if I wanted to ensure that I got every possible amount of resistance to change from techies, PC culture is the PERFECT method. It doesn't encourage them to learn something new, it shames them and makes them feel inferior. It holds individuals accountable for a cultural problem. It rewards silence and adherence to policy rather than encourage creative problem solving. It is dreadful.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I would also think the tech sector has socially awkward guys now trying to treat women not as they treat other nerdy guys but as professional women.

    I also hear that Indian men, that have huge numbers in tech, are very misogynistic. Evidently having women bosses drives them crazy.

  • BYODB||

    Perfectly rational, if improbable from irrational animals.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I just keep,thinking how if we got serious and kicked all the progs out of,the country that we wouldn't have to have stupid conversations about nonsense like this.

  • lap83||

    It Makes Women's Work Life Look Grim

    If it wasn't so despicable, it would be almost impressive how upper class Western women are able to convince people that their first world problems are actually horrible tragedies

  • creech||

    I'm going to send a note to HR requesting all future employment ads read "Women - we will pay you 2/3 of what men make." And when the resumes come flooding in, the company can fire all the men, replace them with women and see the labor portion of our operating statement soar by 33%. That should show the patriarchy!!

  • BruceMajors||

    Heidi Hartmann is a Marxist economist who was writing and advocating on this topic in the late 70s and early 80s, when the catch phrase was "comparable worth" (I actually wrote about it for the American Spectator in 1982 or so).

    Back then, when Santa Monica or San Jose or other California towns were trying to impose "comparable worth for comparable work" regulations on municipals employees, the statist feminists would complain that public school teachers ("who have Master's degrees!") were earning much less than high school dropouts who drove the garbage trucks and unloaded heavy garbage cans all day.

    The fact that you have to pay people more to find people willing to exhaust themselves outdoors no matter what the weather lifting heavy garbage cans full of disgusting trash than you would to find someone who can manage to get a college degree and a teacher's license who is willing to order 15 or 25 kids, was a microeconomics concept beyond Heidi et al's grasp.

  • Jerry B.||

    And Representative-elect Ocasio-Cortez will be tweeting this report, and her commentary about how all women make half of what men make in the same job, shortly.

  • IceTrey||

    And then some mansplainer will point out she's making $174,000 which puts her in the top 5% of earners.

  • BruceMajors||

    Funny. The IWPR development director is a Ryan Koch https://iwpr.org/about/our-people/

  • BruceMajors||

    A fake fact check site rates IWPR as factual, nut you can vote about what you think on their site

    mediabiasfactcheck.com/
    institute-for-womens-policy-research-iwpr/

  • BYODB||

    Everything past their methodology is horse shit, and isn't that usually on the first page? Not sure why any more 'in depth' analysis matters when it's a patently horseshit study from a group with a vested interest in making women's pay seem as terrible as possible.


    I note they still don't make any mention of men's mortality disparity in the workplace. We need more women to be killed on the job before we can give many fucks about how much or how little they might be paid.

  • The Last American Hero||

    They bitch about the shortage of women in high paying tech jobs, but I don't see them bitching about the dearth of female commercial fishermen, loggers, coal miners, or steelworkers. Funny, that.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Forget the adage that women only make about 80 cents to every dollar a man does—in actuality, it's more like 49 cents for every dollar, IWPR says.

    Haha. Who actually believes this bullshit?

  • Zeb||

    People who really, really want to believe it, that's who.

  • ||

    It's also widely known that, in prison, women are more likely to be punished for trivial offenses. This has frequently been presented as a bias in the penal system, but women are overwhelmingly more likely to commit the minor/trivial offenses even when the punishments are laid out and the rules are identical.

    Not only are women less likely to ask for raises, they're more likely to be flaunting the rules and generating toxic workspaces if their employers didn't give them the raises that they didn't ask for.

    Anecdotally, Mrs. Casual can vouch for this, she's had co-workers and employees quit and/or get fired to pursue better opportunities or because they opposed policy. She's never once had a male employee quit or get fired out of personal spite for her or someone else. She's known no less than 3 women who've done so.

  • Qsl||

    It's also widely known that, in prison, women are more likely to be punished for trivial offenses.

    Per the "Introduction to Correctional Techniques" (June 2006), it goes on at great length of how women are socialized different than men, more likely to suffer all manner of abuse, more likely to seek attention through negative means, etc., etc. and therefore should be treated with more discretion than their male counterparts.

    The few bits I remember-

    Women prisoners are to be asked, not ordered like males for compliance.
    Women are to be given space to express their concerns over any action.
    Women frequently require explanations before proceeding to any task.

    It then went on to explain how this is not treating women differently than men, but adapting the same correctional techniques to unique populations.

  • Uncle Jay||

    America, and Americans, must evolve past the antiquated idea of wages.
    We must progress to the point where we no longer need wages, food, shelter, clothing and other needless items that display our selfishness and vanity.
    Instead of money, we should be paid in a simple "thank you, fool," or a heart-warming, "what a moron!"
    But failing that, I'm sure most of us here would be more than happy to exchange our ill gotten gains and money for some unicorn hair, a poison ivy plant or two, and some rain water which should tide us over until our employers take the time to collect more of these.
    Indeed, isn't satisfaction of a job well done enough for all of us?
    We don't need money.
    We just need love and acceptance to survive.

  • the_strickler||

    "In many ways, the picture has gotten progressively better for women over the past 50 years. During the first period (from 1968 through 1982), only 28 percent of women worked every year—a rate that rose to 57 percent in the latest period (from 2001 through 2015)."
    .
    So it has been decided that it is better if women enter the workforce? Why are more women working? Is it because their husband's salary has been flat for 40 years and so they enter to supplement and save for things like college educations? Or, did women entering the workforce cause salaries in general to be flat over the years which caused more women to need to work? Is it chicken or egg?
    .
    By they way, in the social justice repression olympics who is in the lead and why do we only compare men to women when it comes to income? How are black transgender non-binary albino undocumented immigrant dreamers who were raised by single mothers in underserved communities doing?

  • Liberty Lover||

    The only thing that will make these ultra-feminist women happy is when they can splice two human eggs to make a viable embryo and get rid of men completely. Nothing less will satisfy them. Then they will be able to live in that perfectly equal feminist paradise. All women will then be paid the same, from part-time washer woman to brain surgeon.

  • Overtaxed||

    "Perfectly equal feminist paradise"

    You mean like communist Russia? Or any other place founded on the principal of "equality of outcome"? If I remember my history correctly, those places weren't "paradise". ;)

  • The Last American Hero||

    They will love it for about 2 weeks, then they will bitch that the piles of trash haven't been removed from the curb, the cars don't run, nothing is getting shipped across the country, the boats aren't getting unloaded at the port so the stores are empty, the crops aren't getting planted, and their high paying job at Amazon is getting cut because the've ran out of inventory.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Take a look at the salaries of the belt minted workforce coming out of college. Girls far exceed men in the same jobs, as HR has bought the myth and wants to make up the difference.

  • Overtaxed||

    My goodness.. How can nobody make the simple leap here that I've always said shows the lack of a wage gap for EQUAL WORK. I do not, in any way, dispute the wage gap exists, but that's like saying a wage gap exists between lawyers and paralegals. Yes, it does.. So what?

    Look, if there was really a wage gap, call it 80 cents or 49 cents on the dollar, the market would exploit it. Let's say I have to pay my delivery drivers 25K a year (men) to get him to drive for me. Because of that, it costs my customers 5 dollars to ship a box from point A to B with me making 1 dollar in profit. Now, let's say a new company opens up down the street with only female delivery drivers. Because it's all women, they only pay 12.5K per year to their drivers and they can, because of that, make the same dollar in profit charging almost 1/2 of what I do to deliver a package. The market would quickly adjust to this, and I'd have to fire all my male drivers and hire all women to be able to compete.

  • mtrueman||

    "the wage gap exists, but that's like saying a wage gap exists between lawyers and paralegals. Yes, it does.. So what?"

    One can choose whether to become a lawyer or a paralegal. One's sex is not a matter of choice and is determined at conception.

  • Longtobefree||

    "One's sex is not a matter of choice and is determined at conception."

    Sorry; not any more. You can now choose to become a woman, and take a cut in pay.

  • mtrueman||

    "Sorry; not any more."

    A man can't bear a child. Not now, not ever.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Bullshit. I can if I choose to identify as a fertile female. It's all a social construct, so get woke.

  • mtrueman||

    "I can if I choose to identify as a fertile female."

    Nobody is stopping you. There might be some advantage in identifying as someone whose wages have been halved.

  • Longtobefree||

    Actually, the all female driver company would probably charge $25 to deliver the package, but have topless drivers who would also get tips, and still run you out of business.

  • Overtaxed||

    Except this doesn't happen. I suppose you could argue it doesn't happen because no man is willing to exploit this market dislocation, but, I'd argue you're wrong. If I could exploit it, I would. And I'm sure there are millions in line behind me that would love to cut their labor costs by 50% (or 20% or whatever number is being bandied about for th wage gap). But we don't. And it's not because I won't/don't hire women, I will and I do. It's because the gap is a myth, I have a lot of female employees working in low pay positions because that's the job they want; they don't want to live on a plane and in hotel rooms like our sales teams. So they take the job doing backoffice work that pays less. Not because they can't have the other job, because they DON'T WANT IT, or don't want it enough to sacrifice their personal lives to have that job. In fact, I'd LOVE to hire a female sales rep because of the doors that can open, but, I simply cannot find one to hire because there aren't many women who went to college for technology and those that did don't want to spend 150 days a year away from home.

    Personal choice is what accounts for the wage gap. And if you don't believe it, by all means, start the "female only" UPS, undercut UPS by 50% on deliveries and you'll have the biggest delivery organization in the world within a few years. Just let me know when you're publicly traded so I can buy puts.

  • mtrueman||

    "Except this doesn't happen. I suppose you could argue it doesn't happen because no man is willing to exploit this market dislocation, but, I'd argue you're wrong. If I could exploit it, I would. And I'm sure there are millions in line behind me that would love to cut their labor costs by 50% (or 20% or whatever number is being bandied about for th wage gap)."

    It doesn't happen because men and women typically don't do equal work. If you want to cut your labour costs by 50% you can do so by getting into a business like day care provision where the workforce is overwhelmingly female.

  • Overtaxed||

    If they don't do equal work, why should we want pay to be equal? As you said above, you can choose to be a lawyer or a paralegal as a man or a woman. If you choose paralegal because you don't want to work 80 hours a week, go to school for 8 years and all the associated stress is that a gender bias or just a personal decision? Equality of outcome is not the same thing as equality of choice. If a woman chooses to be a lawyer and work 80 hours a week or a man a paralegal working 40 without a college degree should we be upset about that too? I've been a hiring manager at 2 very large companies and, if anything, the bias is to "hire women" rather than men. And the pay scales are completely set by formula, a woman makes no more or less than an equally tenured and qualified man. Very very few women apply for these jobs though, both because almost none went to college for or have the experience and certifications in IT and those that do don't want to be away from home for 100+ days a year. I can't blame them for that, neither do I! But claiming that I could hire a woman to do this job at 49% or even 80% of the salary range is ridiculous. If I could, I would. As would any other business that has the slightest financial acumen.

  • mtrueman||

    "But claiming that I could hire a woman to do this job at 49% or even 80% of the salary range is ridiculous."

    Nobody is claiming this. You misunderstand. If you want a cheaper work force, get out of the IT business and get into a field where women typically dominate, like child care provision.

    "If they don't do equal work, why should we want pay to be equal?"

    One reason that comes to mind is the idea that men and women contribute equally to society. Leaving the labour market to decide pay leads to things like women being penalized for bearing children.

  • DPICM||

    "Leaving the labour market to decide pay leads to things like women being penalized for bearing children."

    A penalty is in the eye of the beholder. Assuming what you say is true, and that a woman is paid 80% of her male counterpart because she decides to have a kid, from her perspective I can see how she feels that she has been penalized.

    But during her 90 day maternity leave, someone has to pick up the 25% of her annual work that isn't getting done, and the male counterpart isn't getting an increase in his salary to perform two jobs. So he could just as easily argue that he is the one penalized.

    Moreover, men generally have zero ability to negotiate a 20% lower salary for 75% of the normal average workload. Typically, you can agree to perform the needed hours and duties or find something else. So a family minded man who wishes he could spend more time with his kids could also argue that what the woman perceives as a penalty is in actuality a huge advantage that he doesn't enjoy.

  • mtrueman||

    "So he could just as easily argue that he is the one penalized."

    I don't think he has much of a case. If the work place has more than one female employee, women as well as men will be expected to take up the work that the woman on maternity leave would normally do. I doubt very much that the remaining women would see no change while men are expected to work more.

  • Overtaxed||

    "Leaving the labour market to decide pay leads to things like women being penalized for bearing children."

    So who should determine salary/pay? The government? Should it just be "we all make the same"? Those ideas have been tried, neither worked out well. Look, business is in business to make money. Not to be a charity, not to reward those who do less and not to implement social policy. Yes, all corporations pay lip service to "ethics" and "community" but anyone with half a brain knows that's just talk. Corporations behave like psychopaths, and they are setup to reward that type of behavior. Offshore and increase profits? Great, nobody cares about the 1000's of men and women you just laid off. Sure, it's nice to think that the "labour market" will suddenly grow a conscience, it's not gonna happen, not until we start to reward that behavior financially.

    Why should I get out of the IT field? Why don't women decide to get into it if they want to make a few 100K a year? I'm not complaining about what my employees cost me, I'm illustrating the silliness of complaining about a 50% pay gap when it simply does not exist.

  • mtrueman||

    "So who should determine salary/pay?"

    Someone who doesn't penalize child bearing.

    "Why should I get out of the IT field? "

    You expressed an interest in halving your payroll. Turning your coders into wipers of snotty noses is one possibility.

  • Overtaxed||

    "Someone who doesn't penalize child bearing."

    Actually, this has nothing to do with child bearing, at least not in my field. Most women simply don't want to do this work, don't have the education to do it, and don't have the intrinsic interest in it that some men do. Almost no women apply for the jobs I have, those that do very rarely have the qualifications and those with the qualifications quickly decide it's not for them when they hear the job requirements. I fail to see how that's penalizing child bearing. I couldn't care less if they have kids, I do care that they have a degree, experience and a willingness to travel.

    "You expressed an interest in halving your payroll. Turning your coders into wipers of snotty noses is one possibility."

    That's a strawman argument; one that could be much better put as "if you want to make more money, don't wipe snotty noses, type lines of code".

  • mtrueman||

    "I fail to see how that's penalizing child bearing. "

    Sounds like you need to do a little research. An internet search revealed the following:

    " Controlling for actual labor market experience and hours worked, the authors show that low scoring [skilled] women face a one-time permanent pay reduction of about 6 percent when they have a child. High scoring women experience a net 8 percent reduction in pay during the first five years after giving birth, a penalty that reaches 24 percent a decade after birth. "

    Apparently men who have children are not penalized by any reduction in wages or salaries, as you doubtless know already.

    "That's a strawman argument;"

    It's not a straw man argument. A straw man argument is when I respond to you by bringing in unrelated matters. You never said anything about making more money, you mentioned an interest in halving your payroll. One way to do this would be to get into a business where women predominate, such as day care provision. The average day care worker is paid just under $US10 per hour. The average coder gets over $US25 per hour.

  • vek||

    That's because women CHOOSE to take time off, which sets you back. They also deal with more child related stuff. Taking a day off to take your kid to the doctor means less work, the mother is more likely to do that than the father.

    All these things make perfect sense, and are really fair... But people don't like them. It is also unfair that men are far stronger than women, but it just is the way it is. It is ALSO unfair that men do most of the dying in wars... But you don't see women bitching about that much do you? Can't recall many feminists demanding women be included in the draft...

    Men and women are not equal. We have pros and cons. That is simply the way things are. Women don't like that they are disadvantaged in some ways, and want to be artificially made equal in those areas... Yet they don't want to become equal in the ways that men are disadvantaged.

    It's bullshit. We'll never be equal, and trying to make it happen is a recipe for disaster.

  • mtrueman||

    My post could have been clearer. low scoring women means unskilled women and high scoring women are skilled.

    "All these things make perfect sense, and are really fair..."

    Why is this fair? A man and woman decide to raise a child, and the man's salary stays the same or increases, while the woman's decreases. She never chose to take a decrease, it was dictated by the market.

    " It is ALSO unfair that men do most of the dying in wars... "

    Don't see the relevance. You're flailing.

    "That is simply the way things are. "

    No, this is the way market forces work. You're resorting to mystification.

    "We'll never be equal, and trying to make it happen is a recipe for disaster."

    It couldn't be any worse than being raped, robbed and underbid by an asylum seeker from Honduras.

  • vek||

    If employee A takes more time off, works fewer hours, etc than employee B... How is it not fair that employee A makes less money?

    It is a known fact that men in the same salaried positions work more hours, take less time off, etc. It's all a matter of people making choices, and having to live with the consequences of those choices.

    Women are the natural care takers and raisers of children. They have always done the majority of this stuff for small children in every society in the history of the human species. That women continue to be the ones who take time off to take the kid to the doctor, while the husband chooses to go to work, is not a horrible thing. But it does have repercussions which women should accept.

    Men simply place more importance on their careers, and this is true even for ambitious women who have "good" jobs. There's nothing wrong with women being paid less for working less hard... That's what they choose to do. And I don't even think that's a bad call. Taking care of your kids well is a more important thing than working a job anyway in the grand scheme of things.

    As I said, studies that seemed to REALLY account for known variables well tend to find pay gaps of about 2-3%... Which is basically nothing. If you wanna bitch about 3% fine, but don't expect most people to think it's a big deal.

  • Enemy of the State||

    If women could REALLY be hired for 49% of a man's wage, men would be virtually unemployable...

  • Overtaxed||

    LOL, thank you for summing up my tyrate above. Yes, this, and not "virtually unemployable" totally unemployable. At 80% of a man's wage (the more commonly given wage gap), men would have a shot at the job, but women would get most of them. At 50%, it's beyond that, nobody would ever hire a man if a women would do the same job, as well, at 1/2 the cost. Tell you what, I have open jobs right now for Cisco engineers. The range of that job is in the 125-150K/yr ballpark. Any CCIE female who's got decent references and at least 3 years of experience and willing to do that job for

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Yep, as explained neatly by Steven Landsburg and others who have even a minimum understanding of economics.

    But denied by everyone who believes in the White Male Club that runs the world. (BTW, I missed the meeting last night--anything important?)

  • NashTiger||

    Enough about the Wage Gap, let's see more about the Thigh Gap, am I right , fellas?

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Thigh gap: a zeitgeisty obsession cooked up by proggy fashion pederasts like Terry Richardson.

  • DarrenM||

    "Still a Man's Labor Market."

    It seems they started with the title of the "study" and worked from there.

  • Longtobefree||

    Speaking of work and wage gaps, which pays the best now, bullshit number maker uppers for wage gaps, or bullshit number maker uppers for climate change?

  • The Last American Hero||

    Climate change. It's a "scientific" field, and thus dominated by men.

    It also takes a lot of paid wage gap bitching to cover even one Solyndra handout.

  • tommhan||

    What a bullshit study.

  • ||

    It's an effective advert but the RSPCA's website makes it clear that they don't accept stray cats unless they are sick. Perhaps they make an exception for kittens
    Yes really good way of promoting caring about animals...www.geosalary.com

  • ||

    It's an effective advert but the RSPCA's website makes it clear that they don't accept stray cats unless they are sick. Perhaps they make an exception for kittens
    Yes really good way of promoting caring about animals...www.geosalary.com

  • ||

    It's an effective advert but the RSPCA's website makes it clear that they don't accept stray cats unless they are sick. Perhaps they make an exception for kittens
    Yes really good way of promoting caring about animals...www.GeoSalary.com

  • ||

    hi everyone i say found a powerful formula that combines the highest quality ingredients to address your weight loss from multiple perspectives, 24 hours per day. By

    increasing your metabolism both during the day and night, increasing your energy levels, and promoting and restful sleep get more info here... www.argeosaly.com

  • vek||

    BS. Every properly done study, that takes reasonable things into account, shows the gap is something like 2-3% TOPS. And I suspect even that is probably valid for hard to nail down reasons. I've rarely ever met a women who busts as much ass as men do, even when they are working the same hours. Hours are easier to quantify than ass busting.

  • mtrueman||

    "Every properly done study, that takes reasonable things into account,"

    Vague claims of academic scholarship

    "I've rarely ever met a women "

    Followed by purely personal anecdotes. You are flailing, vek.

  • vek||

    Google the studies buddy!

    Multiple studies have been done that properly accounted for hours worked, years on the job, how managers rated people, vacation days, etc etc etc... And when they do, they should gaps in the single digits. There may well be a real gap that is 3%, or HELL maybe even 5%! But it is not a massive 20-50% gap like idiot feminists claim. That is total bullshit.

    As for anecdotes, I'm not saying it's scientifically sound... But in a way the stats prove exactly what my life has shown. The fact that men in basically every industry tend to work more hours than women doing the same exact job kind of proves my point. Male doctors work almost 50% more hours per week on average than female doctors. Who would you say is busting ass, men or women?

    It's just the way we're wired. Men and women ARE NOT wired the same way. Women don't care as much about their careers. Men do. Probably because evolutionarily men needed to prove their status by being economically successful, and women didn't. So we have a drive to bust ass in our work that women don't have.

    If you're one of those people that actually thinks men and women are not fundamentally different... You should read more biological studies, psychology studies, polling on opinions on subjects, etc. Men and women always overlap, but have clearly divergent stats on basically everything you can think of. Come to terms with reality my friend.

  • vek||

    Google the studies buddy!

    Multiple studies have been done that properly accounted for hours worked, years on the job, how managers rated people, vacation days, etc etc etc... And when they do, they should gaps in the single digits. There may well be a real gap that is 3%, or HELL maybe even 5%! But it is not a massive 20-50% gap like idiot feminists claim. That is total bullshit.

    As for anecdotes, I'm not saying it's scientifically sound... But in a way the stats prove exactly what my life has shown. The fact that men in basically every industry tend to work more hours than women doing the same exact job kind of proves my point. Male doctors work almost 50% more hours per week on average than female doctors. Who would you say is busting ass, men or women?

    It's just the way we're wired. Men and women ARE NOT wired the same way. Women don't care as much about their careers. Men do. Probably because evolutionarily men needed to prove their status by being economically successful, and women didn't. So we have a drive to bust ass in our work that women don't have.

    If you're one of those people that actually thinks men and women are not fundamentally different... You should read more biological studies, psychology studies, polling on opinions on subjects, etc. Men and women always overlap, but have clearly divergent stats on basically everything you can think of. Come to terms with reality my friend.

  • Kazinski||

    "If women get paid less than men for the same work, why would a capitalist ever hire a man?"
    - Iowahawk

  • UncleSam13||

    Forty-mine cents on the dollar is still too high.

  • perlchpr||

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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