Do Women Really Earn Less Than Men?

Robert, haven't you been told yet?

In good ole' Sask we have long been told by the Socialist braintrust to never, never, let the facts stand in the way of a good story. Or talking point in this case.

BTW, you realize, now, much effort will have to be put into finding the next thing we can all feel shortchanged about...

I'm gonna go watch the 'Highway of Heros' video again and feel good about Canada instead!

The socialists here in B.C. were not content to give women equal pay for equal work,they had to evaluate every job and "value" it by a mysterious points system.

Fortunately,private industry rebelled, so it was only implemented by the government. I remember attending a Union meeting where the women clerks argued that they should get the same pay as heavy equipment operators and snowplow drivers.

The women won.

In the construction industry,female electrician and plumber apprentices are paid equally,but when the heavy lifting is done,the women stand aside while the men grunt heavy cables or pipes into position.

They do unequal work for equal pay,and feminists wouldn't have it any other way.

Great article.

Modern feminists have horribly fried that women not only have children but prioritise them above a nine-to-five job. Family men see their position as the provider. These factors irritate feminists as well as confound them.

In the City its a bit different. Most Women work summes than take winters off on UI. When asked if they want a full time job, most say no if still in child bearing years. They want to hvae a family life while having a job that accomodates thier hours. Not full time, no full time wages for a year.
Its that simple, & I bet it happens all over.

I make as much (actually more) money than my male colleagues - however I also never took off time to raise kids (so I have the same experience),and I was willing to do work that many women will not (such as work overtime, move to take work rather than take do nothing jobs, or take on jobs with unknown outcomes). If you factor in specific education and experience (quality not number of years), women are on par with men.

From the blog:

"I find it ironic that liberals, who often decry materialism, tend to judge equality based solely upon materialism (in this case, wages)"

No kidding but that is not the only irony. Progressives routinely equate employment and profits with the exploitation of workers. Meanwhile feminists insist that a full-time career should be mandatory for all women who view themselves as modern and independent (taking time off for child-rearing is seen as evidence of backwardness and submissiveness). Feminists sure are eager to sell their sisters into wage slavery. From my experience I have a much greater impact and freedom at home than I did in the workplace. It's all about leverage, I guess.

"I remember attending a Union meeting where the women clerks argued that they should get the same pay as heavy equipment operators and snowplow drivers." - dmorris

Your anecdote is surprising. Wage equity surveys for heavy industry usually include things such as risk of harm, overtime/callout requirements, responsibility and decision-making, worksite comfort, impact on profitability, etc., which are all counted toward point totals. Acknowledgment of these differences create a fairly large point gap between office clerks and field staff. One of those situation where perception of ones importance and reality are often at odds.

Oh, and this, "but when the heavy lifting is done,the women stand aside while the men grunt heavy cables or pipes into position...They do unequal work for equal pay,and feminists wouldn't have it any other way." I highly doubt it - chivalry died a long time ago. I know I would have waited all day for my male, union colleagues to do the heavy lifting for me - some were very difficult to find at all when the grungy work orders came in. Perhaps you may have one of those perception/reality misfires yourself?

So the writer of the article concludes that there is a wage gap and lists why it exists. "Professor James T. Bennett compiled 20 major reasons for the wage gap, which include some of the following". The article is misleading. The writer's only disagreement is the usage of the wording "exact same work", not the wage gap claim itself.

I agree with him that using the wording/semantics "exact same work" could may paint the picture in a more literal persons mind of two accountants, equally educated, working for the same company, in the same office, with the same title, yet the female accountant is making just 75% of what the male accountant is making hourly/monthly. He doesn't like the simplification, the lack of the disclaimer/asterisk that explains how the statistics were calculated and what criteria was involved in arriving at that conclusion. Now if one were to take the two accountants scenario wages over 10 years then would there be a gap? Quite possibly yes for the reasons the writer himself references.

The major reason for the gap, which he lightly touched on, is due to choice of profession. Female dominated nurturing professions tend to pay less, for example: elementary school teachers, social workers, youth workers, domestic help, child care providers and practical nurses.

Married women with children do earn less for the reasons he stated. It use to be that this fact was taken into account during divorce settlements, not so much anymore these days due to the push for equality and the move towards and greater acceptance of a "genderless" society.

Ah, the old female wage discrimination argument. I've read a bit about it on the Carp Diem and from the Arnold Kling from the George Mason University. The results of both studies are mostly the same: on the macro level it easy to prove discrimination -- that is until you factor in reality. To elaborate, the one article I remember the most is about a gal who owned a law office and was explaining how she had to approach wages for good men / women lawyers in the free market. She needed people who were were required to, with notice of less than 8 hours, fly to another city, work 18 hour days for 2-3 months 6 days a week and not come home during the time of the court case that could last up to another 2-3 months. Most, if any women (less than 5%), would do it if they were moms, or in a relationship or... but there were 30-40% of men who would for extra pay. She cited that with the time off, reduced hours and inflexible work schedules forced her to pay premium of up to 40% to those who would do the job. It looks like it comes down to if you're willing or able to do the job and to those who will, extra pay is in order. Seems reasonable to me: end of controversy.

I once worked with a female elecrician who got the same pay as me but couldn't bend a piece of conduit because she wasn't strong enough. It worked out OK for her though. They could't fire her because she was a women so they had to give her a nice clean warm office job where she couldn't do any damage, (at the electrician rate of pay).

What I am for is truth, critical thinking and unbiased comprehension of what I read in articles. I am against misleading statements. The writer of the article is a hypocrite. He misleads the reader by stating that the evidence says that it's NOT true that statistically the woman will make less money than her male counterpart, yet provides no evidence for his conclusion. On the contrary, he concedes that there is a wage gap, he just thinks the statement "exact same work" is misleading period; how is the "exact same work" statement any less misleading than his own "Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics: The Wage Gap?"

The two accountant scenario I mentioned, in a significant number of cases, does end up with the female accountant earning less wages over ten years than the male accountant - how is that a dammed lie? The message of that article can be summed up as 'semantics/wording can be confusing if you are highly literal person and could be possibly construed/interpreted as a flat out lie.'

@N, I'm not a feminist. I'm not divorced, never have been. I just celebrated my 29th wedding anniversary last weekend. I earned income; full-time/part-time inside and outside of the home for 26 of those 29 years.

The truth is a significant number of women realize a loss in terms of income/education levels when they marry and have children while a significant number of men realize a gain - those are facts, not dammed lies. It is what it is.

Uh-huh, minuteman, and if I got a dollar for every whine about female co-workers I'd be a millionaire. Our front offices had mostly RTW guys with mysterious (and intermittent) back injuries. But, by far, the #1 reason for not being able to work was stress - although both men and women seemed about equal in susceptibility to that particular ailment.

The wage gap myth has been thoroughly debunked by Sowell and others year ago. It only persists in the mind of those who really, really need to believe it to be true to justify their employment and/or political ideology.

I could be wrong, Lori, but the gist of the article is that the difference in wages is due to personal choice not institutional discrimination. When age, experience, marital status and children are accounted for there is no wage gap based on gender alone.

how many female cops does it take to change a light bulb. without hurting themselves?
I saw a woman fire person carry a 200 lb.(convert to kg's if u must) man down a 90 foot (use meters if u have- to)ladder.
didn't happen/never will

"They do unequal work for equal pay,and feminists wouldn't have it any other way." I highly doubt it - chivalry died a long time ago"

Next time I'm on a new building site, LC,I'll invite you to join me and observe this phenomenon. I'm NOT making it up.

And it has nothing to do with chivalry, just a recognition by the foreman that women simply aren't as strong as men and would probably hurt themselves pulling heavy 2 inch electrical main line cable or lifting a 12 foot length of cast pipe into position.

And the Union I was talking about was the BCGEU, government employees union.File clerks were,in their minds,doing work of equal value to a snowplow operator.

"Perhaps you may have one of those perception/reality misfires yourself?"

Absolutely not,LC, I only report what I have observed on many jobsites over the last 27 years. Lest you think I'm one of those old-time chauvinists who don't give women credit for their abilities,think again.

I was raised by one of the most capable people I've ever known,my Mother. I have worked alongside women in various jobs for forty years and have great respect for women in the workplace.

I'm not,however,politically correct,and won't ignore an obvious reality that I have witnessed time and again.

Some jobs simply can't be done as well by women,and the reverse is also true,there are jobs women are better at than men.

In my own trade, no heavy lifting is required,and I've hired women who do a very good job. I often find women are more conscientious than men when quality is required.

I worked on a project last year where the young woman apprentice electrician didn't have the strength to drill the holes through the rim plates,the drill is about four feet long and weighs about twenty pounds. After trying for an hour or so, the foreman sent her to do in suite wiring,while a strong young guy took over the drilling. Equal pay,unequal work.

None of the young guys minded one bit as the young woman was,as they say,"a hottie",and even though she couldn't do all the work,everyone on the crew was ever so NICE to her.

So was I,now that I think about it. ;-)

Yeah I know I'm a Bas***d (south park)....

A few years back during my farming phase....I concluded the most timely and easiest way to pick rocks from the worked soybean ground was to hire some students.

When I called the student labour pool, the gal was flabarghasted I specified that of the 4...that 1 be a girl.

"She asked you want a girl to pick rocks?"

I responded...
"I have found the language to be more acceptable if a girl was present."

It worked fantastic....the gal was willing but the guys made a point of picking up the big ones and then hustled to impress her. and she hustled to impress them....

Yeah I know I'm a Bas***d (south park)....

I do believe you that the one particular woman electrician was unsuitable for that particular job but that does not prove the case regarding women in trades. I have known a few female industrial mechanics that did not have trouble with the physical component of their jobs (not that they guys didn't bitch about them constantly, of course).

One amusing anecdote: There was a rather volatile personality conflict between a male mechanic and female mechanic. During one confrontation we wondered if she would simply her pick up her much smaller male co-worker and snap him in half. I doubt that particular farm girl would have had any difficulty pulling cable.

It is the individual not the gender.

LC Benett - I don't think that is what he was saying. The writer states "Before continuing on, I should note that this discussion will not deal with discrimination that may occur with regards to hiring or promoting. Glass ceilings and pink ghettos will not be discussed. The fallacy here is that men and women are paid vastly different amounts for doing the exact same work. As you will soon see, the “same work” has a very flexible definition indeed. And "Certainly discrimination exists, but the market grinds away at it with ruthless tenacity."

The writer is correct in saying that it all boils down to green, as in money. Why hire an equally capable and educated women when she is more likely than a man take time off to raise children or look after aging parents, and/or not be as willing to travel or work overtime as a man? Employee time off and retraining a temporary or permanent replacement costs a company a lot of money. Employers are well aware of these factors. Is it okay for employers to make hiring/promotion decisions based on these factors?

He is also correct in noting the statistical wage gap is changing. Women are waiting until after they are educated or established in their careers to marry, if they marry or have children at all, which has more to do with the disintegration of the family/higher divorce rates than anything else, and the fact that due to ever 'evolving' gender neutral divorce laws, she may not even be compensated financially for her contribution in raising the children, loss of career, educational opportunities, old age pension etc.

He did NOT mention that the gap that use to exist in women living longer than men is also closing and women are fast approaching equality with men in that department as well.

It certainly seems that his problem is with the use of the term "exact same work" not being clear or inflexible enough, and the 75 cents for every dollar claim which happens to be true, for now, when you look at how the statistics are calculated which includes Professor James T. Bennett's 20 reasons with, I am assuming here, the choice of profession is one of them. Does he want an inflexible definition or the inclusion of the words 'over time' or 'all variables considered.' The gist, I guess, is he thinks those words lead to an oversimplification and a subtle denial of the issue. He seems to be speaking out of both sides of his mouth on this one IMO.

The question as I see it is - Is it acceptable for employers to prefer to hire a man over a woman for the reasons listed in the article? Since getting married/living common law is a choice, should a woman just accept that, since it's her choice, that there will be losses in the income/education areas of life or to a lesser extent the man if the relationship ends? This leads me to ask what should the criteria be to determine compensation for wages for occupations? If impact on society as a whole, or the degree of responsibility placed on a person is considered a criteria for wages, then certainly raising/caring for children should rank at the very top IMO.

I based my conclusions on this passage:

"The marital asymmetry hypothesis and specifically, child rearing, seems to be of huge importance here. And luckily, there is an easy way to test the importance of it; namely compare the wages of never-married women to that of never-married men. In 1982, never-married women earned 91% of what never-married men did. (12) In 1971, never-married-women in their thirties earned slightly more than never-married men (13). Today, among men and women living alone from the age of 21-35, there is no wage gap. (14) Among college-educated men and women between 40 and 64 who have never married, men made an average of $40,000 a year and women made an average of $47,000! (15)"

All things being equal woman are not being discriminated against by employers in either opportunity or wages. Women are simply making different choices which lowers their average income.

For example, work at a university research lab is lower paying than an industrial job but R&D is cleaner and does not require overtime. The two people are doing the "exact same job" in general but one worker is prioritizing a less intensive job over a higher total wage (regular + OT).

Victim groups are hesitant to break down the stats because they paint an entirely different picture than the one they want. The message they need is that our society systematically discriminates against women but this breaks down when apples are compared to apples.

Do employers hesitate to hire women because of family issue? Perhaps, but the authors stats I excerpted above indicate that they do not which is similar to T. Sowell's work.

LC Bennett: As you stated, the quoted stats compares never married men to never married women. The fact remains that when women marry and/or have children their incomes drop, so they are still having to choose between marriage/family or career whereas men do not have to sacrifice one for the other, in fact, a mans income, increases when married as indicated in the article.

I get that it's hard for men to grasp how difficult of a choice this is for women given men don't have wombs or suffer loss of income unless they choose to stay home and care for the infant/child after the woman gives birth. Unfortunately this is why many women have abortions. I certainly don't approve of abortion; I'm just stating a fact. Choices seem easier when you know you won't likely ever have to make the one in question.

Is it any wonder more woman are going to college than men given that the trades are often not an option due to the physical requirements of the job. To earn the same amount a tradesman does a woman either needs to go to college or start her own business. The traditional female professions do not pay enough to support children and a husband, if he decides to be the one stay home or take the hit at work when their is a family versus work conflict.

dmorris; BTW injuries, age, and physical stamina can render a male just as unable to lift a heavy object, bend a piece of conduit, or drill holes in a rim plate using a 20 pound drill.

I understand what you are saying Lori but I disagree.

You frame the job/family choice as a sacrifice that the woman alone must bear. This goes full circle back the baby boomer feminist idea that this is in fact a sacrifice. SAHMs are victims of a cruel choice between work and babies. Yet, I rarely meet a young mother who regrets her decision to stay home. I do however know older women who regret not having kids, not having more kids or not spending more time with her kids while other women have no regrets. Women are individuals.

Personally, I believe that feminists preoccupation with the work vs. family is overly simplistic. Life is a series of stages with each individual and family unit deciding what works best for them at each stage. Feminists are just the annoying mother-in-law who tries to make everyone feel guilty and inadequate.

lucky lori

you are emotionalizing, were the article is using reason and logic. There is a large "income" variation in both the "male" side of the work force and the "female" side of the work force, and much of that variation is due to choices and ability, both physical and knowledge wise. Even you example of 2 accounts does not necessarily examplify "discrimination", as I'v had to deal with accountants and many of those folk are brain dead, so a good accountant is worth more than a mediocre one. To use the accountant example you need an evaluation of both individuals performance, end of story. You would be aware of this if you had taken your industrial engineering:-)))

"You frame the job/family choice as a sacrifice that the woman alone must bear" I disagree. As the article states "Professor Bennett discusses represent the single biggest difference between the genders when it comes to wages: marital asymmetry. In other words, marriage tends to increase a man’s earning potential and reduce a woman’s earning potential. There is no emotionalism involved here, experience yes. Call it marital asymmetry if you want, it still boils down to the fact that statistically married females earn less than married males during their lifetime. A wage gap is based on wages, ie; money, not the intangibles that come with raising children of which there are plenty, but there are also plenty of intangibles for the males without the personal financial/career losses.

GYM - when I used the accountants example, I said both were equally educated and had the same position at the same company, I could have added competent to the list, consider it added. Now if one were to take the two accountants scenario wages over 10 years then would there be a gap? Quite possibly, yes, for the reasons the writer himself references.

BTW, I took my first year Electronic Engineering at NAIT back in 84' as a night student, I was laid off my engineering assistant job that same year; incidentally, I was nine months pregnant at the time.

Lori said: "Call it marital asymmetry if you want, it still boils down to the fact that statistically married females earn less than married males during their lifetime."

Yes they do earn less, but that's because they -work- less. So its only fair, yes?

This is becoming a major issue in the medical profession, as male doctors over their work life will do the work-load equivalent of one and a half to two female doctors. Thus having double the lifetime income, of course. Women doctors (on average) do NOT put in the hours men do.

This hours-worked disparity is a problem because medical schools are training women at double the rate of men these days. Two women together make one guy, means LESS total doctor-hours from the entire cohort of physicians.

The result is a situation occurring at an Ontario hospital I know of, where they have four hospitalists. Two are young women, both of whom are pregnant. Both expect to be taken back in their jobs after baby leave. Leaving the other TWO doctors to do all the patients four were handling. For six weeks. If all goes well.

Obviously the hospital can't recruit somebody to cover them for just six weeks, so they have to hire locums. Who cost a lot more than permanent staff. So they don't get two, they get one. Then three doctors have to haul @ss to keep up with the patient load meant for four, but two of them aren't getting paid any more for it. (Salaried position, not fee for service.) Only the locum gets paid commensurate to the work load.

Patient care suffers, because A) too many patients and B) doctors are tired and CRANKY from being taken advantage of and ripped off.

Multiply that situation by the entire Ontario health system, and you can see that doctors are going to be in serious shortage for a long time to come.

Unless somebody grows a brain and starts training more men, anyway.