That 78 Cents Thing? It's Me.

That 78 Cents Thing? It's Me.
by Heather Koerner on 05/04/2009 at 8:16 AM

I missed Equal Pay Day last Tuesday.

According to the AAUW, the American Association of University Women, "to match men's earnings for 2008, women have to work from January 2008 to April 2009 — an extra four months. In recognition of this inequity, Equal Pay Day will be marked on April 28, 2009." They point to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics stating that full-time working women in America earn almost 78 cents for every dollar a full-time working man earns. This gap, the AAUW writes, is "evidence of discrimination, which remains a serious problem for women in the work force."

But is that really true? Do women earn less simply because evil men plot across the world to intentionally lower our salaries and keep us in our place? Or do we make less because of the choices that we make?

Allison Kasic, of the Independent Women's Forum, writes:

"Far from a crisis, the difference in median wages can be chalked up to different preferences and lifestyle choices. A mother, for example, who takes time out of the workforce to care for an infant or elderly family member likely decreases her future earning potential and therefore contributes to the wage gap. Ditto the mother who gives up higher wages for a more flexible work arrangement to assist with her childcare needs. So do women who forgo a high-paying career in laboratory science for a more social or family-friendly work environment that pays less, but is more personally rewarding for them. Each of these individual choices, which are perfectly rational for that unique person's situation, contributes to the aggregate wage gap.

The choices that men make matter too. The truth is that more men, on average, are willing to take on jobs that are dirty, dangerous, and distasteful to most women."

According to one Department of Labor study, the wage gap shrinks to almost nothing when young, childless, men and women of equal backgrounds and tenure are compared.

Even the AAUW's own literature admits that choices contribute to much of the wage gap. Though I'm not officially in those bureau statistics (I am considered a part-time working woman),my own life reads like a list of AAUW "what not to do." I chose a "female-dominated" field of study; I chose to work, for a time, in the non-profit job sector, and I have chosen to take a break from the work force because of motherhood.

I didn't make those choices because a patriarchal society indoctrinated them into me. I could have (and almost did) entered a "male-dominated" field, worked at a for-profit firm and placed my children in full-time child care. But I didn't because of deeply held convictions about biblical truths, my own personal passions and practicality.

If I decide to return to full-time salaried work someday, I will have less work experience resulting in a lower salary. That, along with my choice of field and my probable value on flexibility over money, will undoubtedly contribute to bringing down that all-women earning average.

So, mea culpa. If you're looking for a finger to point, you might just skip right over the supposed big, bad discrimination machine. You want to know why women earn 78 cents to a man's dollar? I can give you at least one reason: me.

Men & Women | Mail This | Share on Facebook

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. obewan said the following at 9:10 AM on May 4:

I have read stats about women in engineering that suggest they earn more than men.

I have actually worked at companies where they had ERA hiring quotas for female engineers. Since there are not very many, they were able to command higher starting salaries out of college.

2. Susan H. said the following at 9:20 AM on May 4:

It makes sense that a woman who's been out of the workforce to raise children will make less money when she goes back to work because she has less experience. But isn't the real problem here that female-dominated occupations--for example, teaching--aren't valued enough by society and so aren't paid as well?

3. Louise from Chicago said the following at 9:28 AM on May 4:

Heather, if you are happy with your life choices than good for you!

Louise

4. Kellie said the following at 9:58 AM on May 4:

I guess it's me too. I work in a "pink" collar profession (part-time) (also non-profit) and I took several months leave after having my baby. And one reason I work in the area I do is for the flexibility it allows....and this is far more important that the salary (which is really not too bad).

5. DannieA said the following at 10:24 AM on May 4:

I work in the school system and my male counterparts are on the same payscale I am. In fact if I make more, it's only cuz I have a graduate degree and move up in the columns...but I may make less than a person who has more post graduate credits than me....I'm on the next to last column.

I really don't get the "difference" in pay thing...it's all pretty equal or fair in my opinion.

6. Louise from Chicago said the following at 10:26 AM on May 4:

It's definitely not me.

But IMO that's just a matter of life choices.

7. Saidahwk said the following at 10:31 AM on May 4:

Who cares if men make more than women, anyway? I mean, really all it means is that husbands make more money so wives can afford to raise their own children... and the problem would be...?

8. Alex C. said the following at 10:42 AM on May 4:

If this is true, then its not just misleading, its also bad research on the part of the AAUW. When you're comparing the performance of two groups (in this case, the wages of men and women) you're *supposed* to hold all other variables constant except the one you want to study.

"According to one Department of Labor study, the wage gap shrinks to almost nothing when young, childless, men and women of equal backgrounds and tenure are compared."

Thats exactly how it *should* be done in the first place. Comparing the wages of people with different backgrounds or experience levels, or even completely different jobs, is not going to give you accurate information. Its sad that an organization thats trying to help women would use such poor research skills to further their cause, although, looking this issue up from other sources, it seems that this is the research method that is often used. Maybe trying to compensate for the other variables makes the process to complicated *shrugs*.

There is one other thing though...
"A mother, for example, who takes time out of the workforce to care for an infant or elderly family member likely decreases her future earning potential and therefore contributes to the wage gap. "

I'm not sure why this would actually contribute to the "wage gape". Shouldn't they be comparing the amount of money a woman like this earns when she *is* working to the wages of men with similar experience/background/etc. in the same field?, rather than talking about how much time she takes off. Unless we're saying that the company pays her less when she *is* working because of the time she took off? Which *would* sound a little like discrimination to me.

9. Pak said the following at 11:25 AM on May 4:

Alex (#8):

The example you give of a mother taking time off to care for a family member - the wage gap would be because of the "experience" she would be earning had she not taken time off thus contributing to any increases to her salary for cost of living or possibly merit or bonuses. That's my take on that discrepancy.

For example: two women start work with the same education/experience for the same company. After one year, one woman takes two years off to have a kid/take care of a parent but is able to come back to the company. One woman will have one year's experience compared to the other woman (who didn't take off) who has three year's experience. Obviously, woman #2 should be compensated more for her two additional years of experience. Now substitute a man for woman #2. Most studies won't make that distinction and that's why men (and businesses) are vilified for the apparent iniquity in salary and wages.

10. BDB said the following at 11:41 AM on May 4:

The statistics are misleading for a number of reasons. In some organizations, pay is higher because there are no benefits. I briefly worked for a small business that was very explicit in informing employees that there was no paid time off for bereavement/funerals, jury duty, limited sick time...put they paid pretty well. Being a finished carpentry company, almost all the employees were men - they cared more about the pay than about the various safety-net benefits.

Lots of women with children choose to work for organizations that allow them stability, predictability and flexibility. Those things still cost money. The organizations who pull it off tend to hire a few more people, pay everyone a little less, but they have enough people they can afford to be flexible when someone's kid is sick.

In contrast, most of the really highly paid jobs in the $500,000+ category - such as investment banking - have other non-financial costs. As one honest Wall Street Journal article put it: most of these jobs are c___. In my MBA program, I had some conversations with my professors who were quite concerned that several of their students did, in fact, get the brass ring, and were financially successful - but were also divorced. The time demands of those extremely well-paid jobs pretty much wipe out everything else in life.

The way you control your time is to be underemployed - you take a job that requires less than your full talents. That means you have something left over for your family instead of being completely drained at the end of the week. It also means that the people you work for will likely be flexible with you, because they know they're lucky to have you, even if kiddie illnesses sometimes interrupt your work schedule.

11. Jo said the following at 11:53 AM on May 4:

As I see it, if a woman and man are paid differently for the same job with the same amount of experience, that's discrimination. But if we're taking blanket figures without taking into account type of work or career breaks for mothering, etc, the statistics are essentially meaningless (as several people have said).

Susan #2 -
"But isn't the real problem here that female-dominated occupations--for example, teaching--aren't valued enough by society and so aren't paid as well?"

Hmm, it is largely true that the caring professions are paid less. I didn't really look at it as a gender thing until you just said that. I'm not sure if it is, per se, but it certainly is wrong. For example, working as a carer over here is very poorly paid, and for that reason the profession is populated with a lot of very bad workers who don't really 'care' and aren't really competent. (I used to be a carer, so I know this isn't true across the board - but it is true in many cases.)

I know that some agencies literally give work to the lowest bidder - ie the person who will work for the lowest wage. It's appalling, and then people wonder why there's so much abuse and bad practice in the industry. Start paying a fair wage, and then you'll be able to get rid of the bad ones because the good ones will actually want to work for you.

12. Trisha in AR said the following at 12:08 PM on May 4:

#7 - "Who cares if men make more than women, anyway? I mean, really all it means is that husbands make more money so wives can afford to raise their own children... and the problem would be...?"

Have you seen the divorce rate?

And what does this say for a single parent who has a male coworker (with the same white collar job desciption, same qualifications, and same work ethic) making $10K more a year? Just sayin.

13. skp said the following at 12:18 PM on May 4:

Jo,
What is a carer?

14. BDB said the following at 1:52 PM on May 4:

(#7) Saidahwk wrote:

>>... and the problem would be...?<<

Well, there was something disturbing that happened at the end of WWII.

We've all heard of "Rosie the Riveter," and are familiar with how many women entered the industrial work force during the war. They took the place of men who were off at war.

There's a brief reference to the situation in Peter F. Drucker's work on how training in business is what allowed the U.S. to win WWII - because systematic training made it possible to hire people who previously had no skills in that field.

One effect of this was that it brought a lot of women into the work force from difficult places. Under the circumstances, workers were needed. For some, it meant a path out of prostitution to working in a factory. This was life changing.

Unfortunately, at the end of the war, many of these women lost their jobs, ostensibly to make room for those men who needed this work to support families of their own.

Some of the women, faced with the prospect of returning to what their lives were before, committed suicide.

It's something that weighed heavily on some of the executives who had originally recruited them.

15. BDB said the following at 1:54 PM on May 4:

skp (#13) wrote: >>What is a carer?<<

That's Pirate English for CAREER...

16. Marie said the following at 3:07 PM on May 4:

Carer... the proper term in context is caregiver. :)

17. BDB said the following at 3:26 PM on May 4:

Marie is right!

18. Mike said the following at 7:01 PM on May 4:

Trisha (#12) said:

Have you seen the divorce rate?

And what does this say for a single parent who has a male coworker (with the same white collar job desciption, same qualifications, and same work ethic) making $10K more a year? Just sayin.

Women initiate 70-75% of all divorces. And that white-collar male coworker may just be paying 50-60% of his bring-home pay in child support. Which means the female single parent is bringing home a lot more than he is.

Just sayin'.

19. Kelly said the following at 7:24 PM on May 4:

I work as a contractor in a male-dominated field.

Contract rates are almost always by negotiation rather than offer. As a result, I often find that I'm on slightly less than my male colleagues. (e.g. $250 to $750 per week less, for the exact same role.)

Why? Am I a worse negotiator?

When negotiating for a role, I often feel guilty asking for that higher $ number, because I don't need the extra money. I'm not willing to draw that hard line, I don't enjoy the negotations, and I'm generally happy with what the second offer is.

(That is, until I hear what my male colleagues are getting, then I feel slightly annoyed!)

So in summary: I'd say it's my female traits that prevent me from toughing out the painful contract negotiations, in addition to the fact that I recognise that I am already well paid and is it really worth arguing that extra bit?

Or is it this - the invariably male manager obviously has a very forceful personality, being in that position, and therefore as a woman, I defer to his authority.

20. Pete said the following at 9:13 PM on May 4:

Perhaps it's better to keep women dependent upon men?

As things stand, an American woman must choose between having a child or earning as much as a man. But why think that this is fair? Why worship the status quo?

21. Laura C. said the following at 10:13 PM on May 4:

Regarding teacher's salaries:

It's a tad misleading to keep regurgitating the argument that teachers are so grossly underpaid (as if they should be making what doctors and lawyers make). Yes, they are an invaluable part of society, but so are cops, and firemen, and trash collectors, and mailmen, and nurses, just to name a few. Should EVERYONE be making 100K+ a year??

My mom has been a public high school teacher with a masters degree for nearly 2 decades (took 10 years off to have three babies in the 80's), and yes, she has always made less than my dad, but guess what, teachers work less than 9 months a year! They get ALL federal holidays off, "planning days," 2 weeks at Christmas, and at least a week at spring break (two weeks in some places). What other profession do you know of with that many "days off"?? When you average out the hours they work with their pay, it really is not that shocking at all. They also get incredibly generous pension packages and it's virtually impossible to fire a public school teacher with tenure (even if they're terrible). (don't get me started about the Teacher's Union).

They all have the ability to work in the summers and bump their salary up to what most other people who work 12 months a year make (maybe not as much as a doctor or lawyer). If they want to make the super big bucks, then go to med school, law school, get an MBA, or a PhD.

At any rate, my mother switched from a medical degree to teaching in college, specifically so she would have summers and holidays off just so she could be at home with her kids (I've never heard of a teacher who didn't consider "June-July-August" as one of the major perks of their profession...) SHE made that choice and she has never regretted it, despite it's lack in salary.

Someone who doesn't work as much as someone else shouldn't make as much. It seems pretty basic.

p.s. I happen to know of several career public school teachers who make over 100K/year.

22. Lita Cosner said the following at 10:59 PM on May 4:

Susan H #2

A matter of factors go into how much a person is paid. One is the convenience/safety of a job; if there is added danger or enough inconvenience to a job, the employer will have to offer an adequate monetary reward if he wants to attract quality workers. That's why construction workers make more than teachers or public librarians. The pool of potential candidates is another--it's a basic issue of supply/demand.

Plus, the fields dominated by women tend to be very flexible--teachers get 3 months of the year off, for goodness' sake--and that usually involves a tradeoff meaning a lower salary.

With only these few factors, it's easy to see how the 'women-dominated' fields lose out in terms of salary, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I'm hoping that most people would readily see how women might be better working with children or more 'relational' jobs, while the heavier, riskier jobs should go to men, who tend to be bigger and stronger than women on average.

The 78 cents to the dollar stuff doesn't make sense economically--if a man running a company could hire a man to do a job for $10 an hour, or a woman for $7.80 an hour, while getting the exact same level of competence, experience, and output, what idiot would hire men at the exorbitant extra cost? Anyone who did so would be flattened by the competition who was able to hire almost 30% more workers for the same money. And pretty soon the competition would be trying to get the more skilled women by paying $8 and more, or men would be offering to work for less to be able to get the jobs that the women had, until simple economics would even out the 'wage gap' if it existed. The smart employer pays based on skill, experience, and output, not sex. This isn't because to do so is egalitarian or enlightened, but because not to do so is economically insane.

23. Amelia said the following at 11:21 PM on May 4:

Re: 'carer' vs. 'caregiver'

To me they are different terms, where a carer is someone who cares for a person who is elderly or disabled, and a caregiver is (maybe) someone who looks after a child. School permission slips were always to be signed by a parent or caregiver (sometimes guardian). Carer is a much more frequently used term than caregiver, and a carer is someone who cares full-time and/or is paid for it while 'caregiver' is not usually used in that context.

Just looked it up on trustly old Wikipedia: 'carer' is the term used in Australia, NZ, and the UK, while 'caregiver' is used in the US and Canada. So there you go.

I'm Australian.

24. DannieA said the following at 12:10 AM on May 5:

#21:

out of public service jobs....teachers make the least...firemen can make a killing after a few years on the job.

Now I'm not complaining...and it also depends on where you work....I work in the school system (although I'm a speech therapist not teacher so I'm on the next to last column out of 5 columns) and I make more than my father does. Now move me to another state and I would take a huge cut in pay.

I also have to laugh when people say people in schools don't "work that much"....I can tell you with certainty that if there were no summers off there would be no sane teachers left. It's not the easiest job...that is a common myth.

Another common myth is the 3 months off for summers (that is if you don't work summer school)...teachers usually have a week or two to clean up/pack/whatever after the students leave and then they come back before students come so technically it's only a couple of months lol :D or depending on if a teacher has to move classrooms and start from scratch or have to attend conferences etc. it's dwindled down to a month and a half so the summers aint' what it used to be.

That being said, depending on where you live, working in the schools is a great deal and you make decent to great money.

25. Jo said the following at 1:09 AM on May 5:

Haha...
13: "What is a carer?"
16: "Carer... the proper term in context is caregiver. :)"

Actually in the UK the proper term is 'support worker', but I figured Americans wouldn't be familiar with that so I used 'carer' 'cause I thought it would be better understood. Obviously not! But Amelia #23 is right - I meant someone who is paid to care for elderly/disabled people etc.

And that role doesn't easily fit into the 'more flexible, more safe' mould either - it's usually demanding shifts and often involves working with 'challenging behaviour'. I know people who work in a residential home for people with epilepsy (and associated disabilities) who frequently come home with bruises and scratches from being attacked by the kids.

26. BDB said the following at 1:10 AM on May 5:

Jo is UK.

In the U.S. caregiver is used in both paid and unpaid contexts - the skills are similar if someone needs to care for their aging parents themselves rather than paying a nurse to do it.

27. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 3:02 AM on May 5:

Jo (#11)

Your first paragraph was well put :)

//I know that some agencies literally give work to the lowest bidder - ie the person who will work for the lowest wage. It's appalling ...//

And employers seek work with the highest bidder, so why is this not equally "appalling"? Milton Friedman joked, "Of course, none of us are greedy; it's just other people who are greedy."

It's not so one-sided. For example, and employer can invest time in training an employee, who then leaves and uses this training with a competing company. And even apart from this, a company owner can't afford to pay an employee more than his productivity, unless the business becomes a charity.

Even a bureaucrat rather than the market decides what a "fair" wage is, he can't force an employer to take on employees in the first place. So government meddling almost always produces unemployment.

BTW, I am not only married (to a woman, despite what Iowa activist judges might think :P ) and have a daughter (and soon a grand-daughter), and love black economist and author Thomas Sowell, I am also an employee not an employer ;)

28. Jo said the following at 10:12 AM on May 5:

Jonathan,

"Your first paragraph was well put :)"

Why thank you. It's nice when we agree. :P

"And employers seek work with the highest bidder, so why is this not equally "appalling"?"

Mmm, but we're talking about very different fields. The problem is that agencies who provide essential care to people who are vulnerable should not be 'all about the money'. There are people relying on these services who have no alternative.

Lita (22) said "the employer will have to offer an adequate monetary reward if he wants to attract quality workers." That's just the point - these agencies are often not bothered about attracting quality workers, they want cheap workers. Why worry about quality when the only people who'll suffer will be the service users, who often have no way to speak up for their rights.

The 'lowest bidders' are (in many cases) those who can't get employment with homes or agencies who DO care about quality, because they're incompetent, lazy or even abusive.

Again, I'm not saying every agency or every agency worker is like this. There are some wonderful carers who love their jobs, and there would be a lot more if the field in general was respected more and paid better.

29. Trisha in AR said the following at 3:27 PM on May 5:

Mike (#18):

You forgot to account for the millions of women who are raising their children with no child support. Now wouldn't that be nice to have your wages varied based on your family circumstances.

I'm not a proponant of redistribution of wealth. I prefer capitalism.
For some reason, equal work for equal pay seems like the right thing to do.

30. Mike said the following at 8:02 PM on May 5:

Trisha (#29) wrote:

You forgot to account for the millions of women who are raising their children with no child support. Now wouldn't that be nice to have your wages varied based on your family circumstances.

Now, that's an interesting premise. Let's take a look at that.

Let's take your original scenario: A divorced woman with kids who works alongside a man. She has kids to feed; he doesn't, and he makes more money than she does. You said $10K more. Just for grins, let's make it $25K. Let's say she makes $25K, and he makes $50K. Good for starters?

Okay, let's pretend this is happening in GA. A southern state, like where you're from. And, let's say just for starters that he doesn't pay any child support.

Georgia, like most states, has a state income tax. But the man has no dependents; she has. That means he will pay $2520 in state income taxes over the course of the year, while she will pay $876.

On the Federal side (using standard deductions), he will pay $4813 in taxes. She pays nothing, because of the exemptions and child tax credits.

They will both pay 7.65% in Social Security and Medicaid tax, which is $3825 for him and $1913 for her.

Now, he'll pay $5000 in tithe, while she pays $2500. (10% of the gross, before taxes.)

Add all that up, and when it comes time for real, spendable income, he keeps $26,652 of his $50K. She will keep $17,203 of her $25K.

If you add the child support, which most men pay (media histrionics notwithstanding), he will pay her $12,504 per year - which is not subject to taxes on her side, nor does he get to deduct it on his side. That means, in the final analysis, he keeps $14,148 of his $50K, while she keeps $29,707 of her $25K.

Now, what happens if they have "equal pay"? Let's say they both make $30K. In that scenario, he will keep $15,463, and she will keep $20,721 - if he pays no child support at all. If he does, then he will keep $7963, and she will keep $28,221.

Let's recap:

Him gross: $50K
Him net: $14,148

Her gross: $25K
Her net: $29,707

Him gross: $30K
Him net: $7963

Her gross: $30K
Her net: $28,221

This analysis also includes the man paying for medical insurance for himself and the children, and the woman paying for medical insurance for herself.

Please also keep in mind that the man still has to pay for housing large enough for him and the children, so they have a place to sleep when they come for visits. Your biggest expense is probably housing, and that expense for him is as big as it is for her. He has to pay for transportation, out of pocket medical expenses, any entertainment he wants to take the children for, any decorating in the children's rooms, and so forth. In other words, his expenses for the children are not zero. Far from it.

Further, under the Biblical standard, if the woman wants to remarry, it is the responsibility of the man who courts her to pay for the dates, for the ring, and to support her if they marry. Her security is taken care of by her ex-husband. Please show me how a man saddled with the financial responsibility I've laid out here can possibly move on if his wife leaves him.

I think the existing system more than accounts for the "family circumstances" of the divorced mother. In fact, it overcompensates by a wide margin. Are you absolutely certain you don't want to rethink your position?

31. Jo said the following at 4:18 AM on May 6:

Mike, 30

That was quite an amazing analysis.

Just one question - where does the problem lie? In the concept of equal pay, or in the fact that divorce laws favour women and penalise men?

32. Trisha in AR said the following at 9:06 AM on May 6:

Touche, Mike. I don't disregard the injustice you have pointed out. Assuming you are in support of men providing for their children, I completely agree with your argument. I have a good friend who pays $7K a month in child support. A month! Believe me, I've heard all the unfairness of this and if there was a bitter pill to be swallowed, that would be it.

What I disagree with is your resolution. Although not stated, you seem to be in support of employers paying higher wages to men. And your reasononing being that some men pay child support. I suppose the men who have no children, or do not pay child support just consider it a bonus?

In any case, I am absolutely certain I do not want to rethink my position.LOL

33. Alex C. said the following at 9:19 AM on May 6:

Replying to #9:

I see. Yeah, that does make sense, and that is probably how they measure it. But thats still pretty misleading; if they want to measure the real "wage gap" they should compare woman #1, with one year's experience, to another coworker with 1 year's experience.

34. Mike said the following at 5:39 PM on May 6:

Jo (#31) wrote:

Just one question - where does the problem lie? In the concept of equal pay, or in the fact that divorce laws favour women and penalise men?

I would say the problem lies in the concept of equal pay, but unequal burdens. Allow me to explain.

It is still the expectation today that men pay. Biblically speaking (see I Tim. 5:8), the man is to be the provider. Dr. Dobson has flatly stated that women should not date men who expect the woman to go "dutch". I suspect that the Boundless staff would agree. It's just tacky. The man is expected to be the primary breadwinner so the woman can stay home with the children, if she so chooses. It's the way God wired us.

And yet, the "modern" perspective is that women should, independent of any other considerations, make as much as the man. Period. The question is, why? Because we think it's "unfair"? But what's really "unfair"? To expect the man to pay for everything, but the woman to make as much as he does?

A person's wages must be based on what that person's work is worth to the employer. If you take five or six years off from the workforce to stay home with kids, well, you're not worth as much to your employer as someone who continued in the workforce. That's just the way it is.

What we're really talking about here is the woman's need for security. Women are afraid that they can be abandoned by a man and left unable to fend for themselves. (A very legitimate fear, I'll be quick to acknowledge.) So, they campaign for the government to come in and enforce "equality". But that's not Biblical. The Biblical standard is to rely on God for your security - not hold men at gunpoint. (Remember the Curse: "Your desire will be to control your husband..."?)

Trisha (#32) -

You're the one who opened the divorce door in this discussion; I just showed you what was behind it. The fact is, people who have children already have a great deal of support just from the tax laws. Even if Dad doesn't pay the child support, if they both bring in $30, she'll still keep $5K more than he does.

You previously stated you don't support income redistribution. But what do you call a $21,000 move of money from Dad's pocket to Mom's? You're not seriously arguing that it costs that much to raise two children, are you?

As for supporting higher pay for men, that's partially true - based on expectations that men have to pay more. Higher burden, higher pay. If you are accepting of the Biblical model that it's the man's job to be the provider, then that's the model I'm following. If the woman wants the man to accept the responsibility, then he needs the resources to follow through on that responsibility.

Most men, including myself, are perfectly willing to share their financial resources with their families. It gives us a sense of accomplishment and pride. What we resent is being treated like walking ATMs. Just like women resent being treated like sex objects, men resent being treated like money objects.

The problem with the "equal pay for equal work" argument is that it's a simplistic slogan that doesn't consider the whole story. I'm very pleased to see the large number of posters on this thread who have been willing to look at all the factors.

35. Laura C. said the following at 9:29 PM on May 7:

#24: You wrote,

"out of public service jobs....teachers make the least...firemen can make a killing after a few years on the job".

and

"I also have to laugh when people say people in schools don't "work that much"....It's not the easiest job...that is a common myth".

First off, most of those fields, pay out a more than livable amount after a few years. And more importantly, with tenure, you're pretty much guaranteed a job and an income for life with pensions and benefits and everything the job entails. Even my father and husband as military officers could lose their jobs far more easily than my public high school teacher mother. And they're all government employees (although neither Dad nor hubby are active duty anymore).

And when I said that people who don't work as much shouldn't get paid as much, I was talking about the amount of hours per year, as compared to most other white collar jobs that go year round. I never said teaching is an easy job. I know the hours upon hours of weekly planning, prepping, quiz and test writing, quiz and test grading that go into a diligent teacher's schedule. But tell me what jobs are easy and stress free that deserve less pay? Being a secretary or office manager can be very stressful and they definitely don't make anything compared to a tenured teacher, nor do they receive a pension. Any job with difficult coworkers (I liken students with coworkers here) will be stressful and challenging and most of the rest of us do not get every weekend, federal holidays, spring breaks, Christmas breaks and a multiple-week-long summer holiday off.

At any rate, everyone has the ability to pursue any career that their talents and discipline enable them to achieve, balancing its pros and cons. I, for one, am very grateful that my mom was there for us every afternoon, every holiday and every summer and she is too even without an enormous salary.

36. BDB said the following at 11:09 PM on May 7:

Alex C (#33) wrote:

>>But thats still pretty misleading; if they want to measure the real "wage gap" they should compare woman #1, with one year's experience, to another coworker with 1 year's experience.<<

Yes, the statistics are misleading.

When they do control for years of experience, women make slightly more. Taking time off to raise children is really the biggest drop, followed by taking fewer risks to gain more security.

It's an impossibly hard calculation, but they should also measure lifetime earnings. I definitely have seen situations where the $100,000+ employees come and go like they are on a bungee cord. They are well paid, but the jobs have no "legs." As soon as the executives change places, they look for "savings."

Meanwhile, the female manager making $60,000 can survive for 15, 20 years with stable employment. She doesn't make quite enough to be a layoff target, but makes enough to own a house.

Believe me, some of those guys who are always agitating for raises irritate the executives above them. They give them enough rope to hang themslves with. When they fail, they get laid off.

37. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 1:18 AM on May 8:

Misleading stats from the Leftist Anointed? Surely not!

Seriously, economists Dr Thomas Sowell and Dr Walter Williams, themselves black, point out the same thing with race relations. E.g. the race hustlers make a lot of income disparities between white and black families. But when families headed by married couples are compared with each other, and the same for single-parent families, the disparity almost disappears. The problem is NOT racism, but that far more black families are headed by single parents. Welfare did what slavery, poverty, racism, the Depression and Jim Crow laws could not: destroy many black families.

Also, exactly the same stats "prove" discrimination against whites in favour of Asians!

Contributors

About Us

Relevant Boundless Articles

SUBSCRIBE VIA EMAIL

Newer Post | Older Post