HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Gender & Orientation » Men's Group (Group) » Wage Gap Myth Exposed -- ...

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 09:57 AM

 

Wage Gap Myth Exposed -- By Feminists

If you believe women suffer systemic wage discrimination, read the new American Association of University Women (AAUW) study Graduating to a Pay Gap. Bypass the verbal sleights of hand and take a hard look at the numbers. Women are close to achieving the goal of equal pay for equal work. They may be there already.

How many times have you heard that, for the same work, women receive 77 cents for every dollar a man earns? This alleged unfairness is the basis for the annual Equal Pay Day observed each year about mid-April to symbolize how far into the current year women have to work to catch up with men's earnings from the previous year. If the AAUW is right, Equal Pay Day will now have to be moved to early January.

The AAUW has now joined ranks with serious economists who find that when you control for relevant differences between men and women (occupations, college majors, length of time in workplace) the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing. The 23-cent gap is simply the average difference between the earnings of men and women employed "full time." What is important is the "adjusted" wage gap-the figure that controls for all the relevant variables. That is what the new AAUW study explores.

The AAUW researchers looked at male and female college graduates one year after graduation. After controlling for several relevant factors (though some were left out, as we shall see), they found that the wage gap narrowed to only 6.6 cents. How much of that is attributable to discrimination? As AAUW spokesperson Lisa Maatz candidly said in an NPR interview, "We are still trying to figure that out."

One of the best studies on the wage gap was released in 2009 by the U.S. Department of Labor. It examined more than 50 peer-reviewed papers and concluded that the 23-cent wage gap "may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers." In the past, women's groups have ignored or explained away such findings.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html


Whoops. The AAUW is about to find themselves to be "not real feminists" and agents of the patriarchy because they came to the wrong conclusion.

16 replies, 7528 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 16 replies Author Time Post
Reply Wage Gap Myth Exposed -- By Feminists (Original post)
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 OP
lumberjack_jeff Nov 2012 #1
Major Nikon Nov 2012 #3
rrneck Nov 2012 #2
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #5
Major Nikon Nov 2012 #4
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #6
Major Nikon Nov 2012 #11
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #12
lumberjack_jeff Nov 2012 #8
Major Nikon Nov 2012 #10
Hemp_is_good Nov 2012 #13
Major Nikon Nov 2012 #14
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #15
lumberjack_jeff Nov 2012 #16
jp11 Nov 2012 #7
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #9

Response to 4th law of robotics (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 10:12 AM

1. AAUW's previous study of the issue in 2007 came to a similar conclusion - 7%

 

But, like this study, the result was hidden in the fine print, behind the inflammatory and misleading headline.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 04:17 PM

3. If you have a convenient scapegoat like the "patriarchy" you can still disregard the study

Besides, 77 cents for every dollar men make and an equal pay day in April always make for bigger headlines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 10:56 AM

2. The author makes a good case

but I'm still suspicious of anything written by a resident scholar at AEI published in the Huffington Post. That being said, people's life choices certainly have an impact on their income. Those choices are influenced by cultural factors which, I expect, epigenetically influence biology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #2)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 05:47 PM

5. When even that AAUW is forced to concede, grudgingly

 

that at most they can find 6% difference then I think it's safe to say the 70/100 myth is just that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 04:18 PM

4. If you consider total compensation, rather than just wages, the difference becomes even smaller

Some researchers believe that it is not enough to compare wages of similar men and women. They argue that total compensation (wages together with benefits) must be compared. Women of child-bearing age may prefer jobs with a lower wage but with employer-paid parental leave, sick leave and child care to jobs with a higher wage but without such benefits. A study that used National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 (NLSY79) found that female workers were indeed more likely to receive family-friendly fringe benefits.6 Some economists believe that female workers "pay" for the benefits they prefer by accepting a lower wage. If that is the case, excluding fringe benefits would exaggerate the actual gender wage disparity.

http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/articles/?id=2160

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #4)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 05:49 PM

6. It's almost as if differences in personal preferences are driving any wage gap

 

rather than system discrimination put in place by the Patriarchy and agreed upon secretly by every boss since the dawn of time in an unbroken and perfect conspiracy the likes of which the world has never seen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 06:34 AM

11. They wouldn't be very fucking smart bosses if that were the case

If you can pay women less for the same work, why would anyone want to hire a man?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 10:18 AM

12. Indeed. Any sane boss would jump at the chance

 

for a thirty percent reduction in labor costs with no reduction in productivity.

Patriarchy be damned, money comes first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #4)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 06:58 PM

8. I don't think that is significantly meaningful, and here's why.

 

Differences in type of compensation (monetary vs nonmonetary) appear to make a difference in the career choices that men and women make; (men choose jobs based almost exclusively on monetary considerations, while women give weight to other factors - see the "work/life balance" thread).

... but this bias shows up as pay differential between various careers. I would expect a teacher with X education, with Y experience, working Z hours per year to pay the same regardless of gender, but not necessarily be the same as the pay rate for electricians. The fact that the teaching offers time off, family-friendly schedule and good benefits tends to attract women who express a preference for those non-monetary factors.

The 7% difference does take into account the difference in pay rate between teaching and electrical engineering... but not the tendency for men to negotiate for salary.

That said, there are probably some variations in pay rate for individual electrical engineers which reflect these preferences (one can take the EE job with the flexible schedule and the better insurance OR the one with higher pay rate.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #8)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 10:30 PM

10. I'm not sure most studies look at it that way

My understanding is that most studies look at the aggregate or "raw gender pay gap" as the Consad study calls it and apply corrections from there.

I believe that several studies have shown that if you look at the same jobs at the same location, the pay gap becomes much lower and practically disappears.

I n f i v e Bureau o f Labor S t a t i s t i c s I n d u s t r y Wage Surveys, the earnings
o f men and women i n the same occupation a t the same establishment d i f f e r by
only 1%.

https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/workpaper/1987/wp8708.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 11:13 AM

13. I wonder how long before it starts going the other way...

 

Seriously, there is so much effort in making sure women are paid as much as men I wonder when the overcompensation (literally) will start showing not only are women at parity (as it should be) but ABOVE such after you roll in all the non-monetary benefits?

this one reason why we NEED a single payer system. so that once you get rid of medical as a benefit, and make it a right, you can start to see what the real numbers are.

that aside... it's good news.
i've never liked the idea of women making less for the same work. However, one last note. its always been down to the negotiation skill of the person how much money they make.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hemp_is_good (Reply #13)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:13 PM

14. It already has

Studies have shown that women make more when you compare unmarried, childless men and women. If you think about it, if you used the same logic you'd have to point to that example and say that the men are being discriminated against in that situation. There's no other conclusion you can draw that doesn't involve double standards. Asian men also make more than Caucasian men. You'd also have to say that Caucasian men are being discriminated against in that situation. It's a mighty slippery slope one treads on when you assume that unequal outcome always means unequal opportunity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #14)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:56 PM

15. I am 100% certain that if women end up earning more than men

 

due to changes in the economy and an education system that does not serve males that anyone who attempts to address the issue by closing the gap will be presented as attacking women and seeking to drag them down.

That's the same thing that happens in every discussion of a gender gap: if women are behind then we must fix it. If women are ahead any attempt to fix it is a direct attack on women.

Too few women in college? Discrimination! Fix it.
Too few men in college? Why would you even bring that up. Do you hate women?

Women pay more for health insurance? Discrimination! Fix it.
Men pay more for car insurance? What, you think women should have to pay more? Do you hate women?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hemp_is_good (Reply #13)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 09:42 PM

16. It will be a long time before it is considered appropriate to even investigate.

 

There's a unwitting partnership between the victim industry and men who are pretty sure (without any real evidence) they are the top dog.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 06:52 PM

7. Who wants to look at the facts and details or minutia of an issue when it just feels

so much better to throw out a statistic that fits your idea of what is going on?

77 cents for every dollar a man earns? this is sexism pure and simple end of discussion or you're a so and so.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jp11 (Reply #7)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 07:46 PM

9. Disagreeing proves you support women being paid less than men

 

for the same job and thus hate all women!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread