Wage Gap? What Wage Gap?

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-29-2003
Wage Gap? What Wage Gap?
4
Wed, 09-22-2004 - 6:35am
WAGE GAP DATA REFLECTS WOMEN'S CHOICES, NOT DISCRIMINATION

(Editorial by Wendy McElroy)

An Aug. 26 report from the U.S. Census Bureau stated that the median female full-time wage for women was 75.5 cents for every dollar similarly earned by men; that's down .6 percent from 2002.

Gender feminists quickly cried "discrimination is increasing!"

Is that charge true, and how is it being used?

The Institute for Women's Policy Research (search) immediately issued a press release that used the 75.5 figure to call for a raise in the minimum wage and improved enforcement of equal-opportunity laws.

But there may be no problem to solve.

For one thing, the .6 percent could be an insignificant statistical variation, especially given that women's wages have risen consistently over the last decade.

For another, a survey is not a scientific study; it only indicates that something may deserve more attention. It does not explain why there is a wage gap.

In 2003, the U.S. General Accounting Office observed, "Of the many factors that account for differences in earnings between men and women, our model indicated that work patterns are key.


Specifically, women have fewer years of work experience, work fewer hours per year, are less likely to work a full-time schedule, and leave the labor force for longer periods of time than men."

The GAO cautioned that it could not "determine whether this remaining difference is due to discrimination or other factors."

For example, some experts said that some women trade off career advancement or higher earnings for a job that offers flexibility to manage work and family responsibilities.

In short, more women than men may seek out lower-paying jobs with flexible hours in order to spend time with their families.

If so, when you take two checklists, one of women's and one of men's full-time jobs, and go to the exact middle of each, the median, women's wages will naturally be less than men's.

But what about comparable full-time jobs? What could account for a wage gap there? Consider just two possibilities.

First, the definition of full-time employment: Most surveys define it as 35-plus or 40 hours a week. But a tremendous difference exists between an employee who clocks 40 hours and one who works 60.

For the same reasons women would seek flexible hours, they also are likely to work fewer hours in a full-time job. Raises, bonuses, and promotions more naturally flow toward employees who work longer hours.

Indeed, when you factor out variables like having children, the wage gap virtually disappears.

In their book "Women's Figures" (1999), economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth and Christine Stolba meticulously compared data on the earnings of childless men and women aged 27 to 33. They found that the wage gap shrank to 98 cents.

A second possible reason for the "wage gap": Surveys do not usually account for factors such as "shift premiums." That is, shifts that are dangerous or otherwise undesirable are more highly paid and more likely to be filled by men.

Working the day shift as a cab driver is not really equal to working the more dangerous night shift, but it is usually treated that way by surveys.

The resulting disparity in wages has nothing to do with discrimination against women. It reflects the preferences of women themselves.

If this is true, then the wage gap is not a problem to be solved. It is merely an interesting statistic indicating that men and women, when offered a level playing field will tend to express different priorities and, so, end up at different places. (This is a crude generalization, of course, and says nothing of individual men and individual women.)

People, like me, who argue that the wage gap is mostly an reflection of women's preferences are often accused of caring nothing for equality or justice.

A more accurate statement is that it is different vision of equality and justice. For decades, two visions have been competing with each other in the debate surrounding the wage gap.

The first view — the one presented here — argues for equality of opportunity.

That is, every individual's ability to exercise his or her individual rights to person and property should be equally protected by law, with advantages granted to none.

Such an equality of opportunity would inevitably render unequal results in wages, for example — because outcomes depend on many other factors, including ability, hard work, character and luck.

The inequality of outcomes is not an indication of injustice, because justice resides in every individual receiving what he or she deserves. Employees who compete with equality of opportunity deserve whatever they can negotiate from an employer based on their merits and his needs. That's justice.

The competing vision defines equality as the outcome in which people are politically, economically and socially equal. Justice is gauged by how equally all people share in those benefits.

This view is often called egalitarianism.

Winston Churchill captured the difference in stating: "'All men are created equal' says the American Declaration of Independence. 'All men shall be kept equal' say the Socialists."

Nothing short of totalitarianism can assure the latter.

The wage gap is, in fact, telling us something that should be heeded about society and human preference. Egalitarians should listen more carefully to what is being said.

Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002).

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-29-2003
Fri, 09-24-2004 - 12:00am
Thank you for posting this oh-so-true article!

As I professional myself, I absolutely can't stand when women whine about a wage gap. Personally, I have seen no evidence of it whatsoever (that can't be explained by the things mentioned in the article.)

Carrie

 

 

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket ths

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 09-24-2004 - 9:50am
Several thoughts.

For the most part, I agree with the author's statements. But, I can also recall the time when women were given the short end of the stick and told they were unable to compete either mentally or physically with males--and it wasn't all that long ago. When I was a child in the 50's and 60's, few women worked outside the home (my own mother was an accountant) and the ones who did were most commonly in teaching, nursing, secretarial and waitressing type jobs. Changing the dynamic to acceptance of abilities in far more diverse job fields was a hard struggle uphill for feminists but the advent of the Pill did a lot to help by giving women more control over their own fertility.

I do NOT agree with Winston Churchill's generalized definition of socialism. Perhaps in his day, the socialists did try to keep all "men" equal (why on earth did she pick Winston who probably really was talking about men, not men and women!). Socialism is evolving and different countries have had different strategies for addressing inequalities--and some of them have done quite well. Chuckle--Britain's efforts toward a socialist society haven't been an unmitigated success, wonder what Winston would think of his island nation's government subsidies today!

Lastly, but not least--my 22 year old daughter coined a great word to describe her beliefs. She defines herself not as feminist but as a "personist". Each person should be allowed to prove her or his abilities, without regard to gender.

Gettingahandle

Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 09-24-2004 - 10:38am
Another comment. I'll be a lot more likely to believe that women have achieved parity, in wage or other terms, when the voters of the United States have the courage and conviction to elect a woman as President. That does not mean that I would automatically vote for a female candidate. But there's a a bumper croup of women running for office, state and federal, in Missouri where I live. It must surely be just a matter of time before a woman is perceived as competent and capable to hold the highest elected office in the land.

Gettingahandle

Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-23-2004
Sun, 09-26-2004 - 10:48pm
In that vein:

it's important for more young women to run, and get elected, so that they can build the resume in public service that citizens will require. The woman who gets voted to the school board, then she wins mayor and then attorney general is the one who can eventually put in 10 years in the senate when she's 45 and run for president when she's 55, with a lifetime of experience to make her competitive against the men who tend to run.

Support this outstanding organization, THE WHITE HOUSE PROJECT, dedicated to laying the groundwork today that will result in a viable female presidential candidate, someday within our lifetime (hopefully!) or our daughters' lifetimes.

http://www.thewhitehouseproject.org/