That Line Obama Retreaded, That Women Make 77 Cents To Every Man's Dollar, Is Crap
Hanna Rosin lays out why at Slate, going into how the stats don't take into account that women and men work different jobs, different hours, etc.:
The big differences are in occupation and industry. Women congregate in different professions than men do, and the largely male professions tend to be higher-paying. If you account for those differences, and then compare a woman and a man doing the same job, the pay gap narrows to 91 percent. So, you could accurately say in that Obama ad that, "women get paid 91 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men."The point here is not that there is no wage inequality. But by focusing our outrage into a tidy, misleading statistic we've missed the actual challenges. It would in fact be much simpler if the problem were rank sexism and all you had to do was enlighten the nation's bosses or throw the Equal Pay Act at them. But the 91 percent statistic suggests a much more complicated set of problems. Is it that women are choosing lower-paying professions or that our country values women's professions less? And why do women work fewer hours? Is this all discrimination or, as economist Claudia Goldin likes to say, also a result of "rational choices" women make about how they want to conduct their lives.
Goldin and Lawrence Katz have done about as close to an apples-to-apples comparison of men's and women's wages as exists. (They talk about it here in a Freakonomics discussion.) They tracked male and female MBAs graduating from the University of Chicago from 1990 to 2006. First they controlled for previous job experience, GPA, chosen profession, business-school course and job title. Right out of school, they found only a tiny differential in salary between men and women, which might be because of a little bit of lingering discrimination or because women are worse at negotiating starting salaries. But 10 to 15 years later, the gap widens to 40 percent, almost all of which is due to career interruptions and fewer hours. The gap is even wider for women business school graduates who marry very high earners. (Note: Never marry a rich man).
And, via @WalterOlson, from the unintended consequences file, Diana Furchtgott-Roth writes in a paper she presented to the Joint Economic Committee of the House and Senate:
With all these elements working against the unexplained pay gap, it is simply irrational to argue that it exists because of "persistent discrimination." It also shows how government intervention targeted towards discrimination will not be effective. However, supporters of the discrimination theory have kept pushing bills like the Pay Check Fairness Act, which have a higher potential of harming women than helping them. For example, in order to escape the heavy guidelines set by the Pay Check Fairness Act, employers may actually find it easier to hire males than females.
And here's how imposed "fairness" has worked out:
Proponents of wage guidelines, such as the National Committee on Pay Equity, approvingly cite examples of areas where pay equity has been used, but fail to acknowledge major problems with the practice. One example cited occurred in Hawaii in 1995, where nurses, mostly female, were given a sum of $11,500 in their annual raises to equate their salaries to those of adult correction workers, who were mostly male. Another example cited was in Oregon, where female clerical specialists were deemed underpaid by $7,000 annually in comparison to male senior sewer workers. In both cases, working conditions were not taken into account. Working conditions in prisons and sewers are far more dangerous and unpleasant than conditions in hospitals and offices. Most people, given a choice of working in an office or sewer at the same salary, would choose the office. So, to allocate workers into sewers and prisons, one must offer them higher pay.
Milton Friedman on equal pay laws:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsIpQ7YguGE
Ben at January 29, 2014 11:16 PM
His whole speech was recycled bullshit. The best and truest part of it was the end, when he honored Sgt. Cory Remsburg. That was ONLY believable thing about it.
Flynne at January 30, 2014 5:07 AM
the .77/1.00 stat is created by not taking into account job titles (ie chiropractor & neurosurgeon are both 'doctor') and by capping "full time" at 36 hours
So a female neurosurgeon working 60hrs a week vs a male neurosurgeon working 80hrs a week should earn 75% of what the man is earning because she is working 75% of the time the man is working
lujlp at January 30, 2014 7:03 AM
Okay, ladies –register for the draft.
Military service pays the same in each paygrade.
Don't worry–you'll still get breaks due to your gender.
Radwaste at January 30, 2014 7:03 AM
Moral(ist) philosopher John Rawls argued that we all would have chosen to be born rich, intelligent, beautiful, and healthy.
So, it follows from pure logic that he and other moral politicians are doing Gaia's work by taking stuff from some people by force and giving it to others. They only keep 30% and a few votes for their sacrifices in making this world a better place for their supporters.
Paralleling Mao's comment, happiness flows from the barrel of a gun.
Andrew_M_Garland at January 30, 2014 7:13 AM
In the State of the Union, after citing the 77 cents per dollar statistic, Obama followed it by saying, "Women deserve equal pay for equal work." It was almost like he was saying women doing the exact same work as men are making 23% less. I want to ask, "Where is this happening? Aren't there laws in place that prohibit gender discrimination in wages for doing the same job? Are these laws not being enforced? Whose fault is it if the laws not being enforced?" It would have been nice if he was able to cite some actual examples, but I don't think they exist.
Fayd at January 30, 2014 7:54 AM
This is were liberty and equality are at odds. When our twins came home, my wife cut her workload because she wanted to balance family and have more time as a mom.
I put in for a promotion, accepted a larger workload, in order to provide and offset her lesser pay. It is what we agreed was best for our family. We contribute to the stats, but no one should decide this for us.
Its a peculiar.paradox when mostly wives push husbands to make.more to give the wives more flexibility, so they can then go to work and demand more pay. A lot of us feel pushed in both directions.
Fact is, equality of outcome cannot coexist with.liberty. equality of worth is.essential, but you cannot let people make their own choices unless you accept different results.
Trust at January 30, 2014 10:36 AM
I want to ask, "Where is this happening? Aren't there laws in place that prohibit gender discrimination in wages for doing the same job? Are these laws not being enforced? Whose fault is it if the laws not being enforced?" It would have been nice if he was able to cite some actual examples, but I don't think they exist.
Posted by: Fayd at January 30, 2014 7:54 AM
One of my best friends worked in the sciences for a Fortune 500 company in a large northern city on the eastern seaboard. When she found out that a coworker with less education and less experience was making more money, she asked for a raise. Her supervisor told her that the guy was given and would maintain a higher salary because he would one day support a family. This was in the late 1990s.
She was aggressively headhunted, and decided to list what her salary would have been if not for that supervisor's discrimination. She felt awful about lying but was unwilling to have her earning trajectory suffer because of sexism. She's now *almost* irreplaceable and in the top 5% of women earners in the country.
~~~
At our law school, one attorney conducting interviews on behalf of a law firm asked a female student if she planned to have children. He asked a male student if his wife was looking forward to staying home with children. This was int the 21st century. I have been asked on day one of a legal internship, by my male supervisor, whether I planned to have children ("No. You?"). There's no telling whether these guys would have based hiring or salary options based on the answers, but we're not necessarily starting on a level playing field.
Michelle at January 30, 2014 4:10 PM
Once upon a time, there was an employer who had a new job opening and two prospective employees, a young man and a young woman, both fresh from college, applied for the job.
The employer bears in mind that he's going to spend 100,000 dollars training his new hire, and that his business depends upon long-term relationships with business clients. But he just can't make up his mind. And with the business thriving as it is, he feels comfortable hiring both, with assurances that a higher position will be opening up in less than two years.
Both new prospects complete their training and start work.
But, wouldn't you know it? Just as they complete their training, the woman discovers she's pregnant and the man discovers his wife is pregnant. After some persuasion from the employer, the woman decides to remain at her job, rather than quit to start a family. But this being her first pregnancy, she finds that she must take occasional afternoon off for medical appointments. The man, mindful that extra money will be needed to care for his wife and their child, decides to take on the woman's workload during her absences, hoping that his increased productivity will land him the promotion.
Then, some months later, the woman delivers, as does the man's wife. But of course, since state laws require paid maternity leave, the woman gets the next six weeks off with pay, and this time off, of course, cannot be deducted from her vacation time. The man, with the goal of the upcoming promotion, takes on the woman's workload as well as his own.
But the employer is not quite done paying for his decision. After her maternity leave, the woman has enrolled her child in a daycare center which closes at five, and she finds herself forced (ha-ha) to leave half an hour early every day, give or take fifteen minutes, to pick up her daughter.
Moreover, she finds herself calling in on occasion to care for her child, who, as newborns tend to do, gets frequent colds and other illnesses common to children. The hapless man, who has placed a picture of his loving wife and newborn son at his desk to keep himself motivated, finds it increasingly difficult to keep up with the demands.
Finally, the higher-level position is vacated, and the man is called into his employer's office.
And the employer regards him warmly but with a twinge of regret, "While I do appreciate your efforts, frequently having to cover for your coworker, as well as your perfect attendance, it's simply common knowledge that a woman in the workplace has to work ten times harder than a man, and even in light of your willingness to take on additional responsibilities, I find that you still haven't matched the work output of your coworker..."
No, just kidding. He didn't say that. Only an imbecile would say something so incredibly dumb.
He expresses his appreciation for the man's outstanding efforts and offers him the promotion, which the man gratefully accepts.
However, once his female coworker returns to the office (after having taken the week off to care for her daughter who contracted a particularly nasty case of strep), she is not pleased. Something within her seems to switch off, and her once calm demeanor is replaced by certain unfathomable rage.
"Why???" she snarls like a beast. "Why did you give that promotion to him instead of to me????"
The employer opens his mouth to cite the man's impressive work output, perfect attendance, but before he can speak, the woman cuts him off.
"Because you're an evil oppressor of women, you male chauvinist piiiiiiiiiig!
Shaking her fists and bellowing madly, the woman then storms out of the office! The woman then hires a lawyer named Isab, who then files suit against the employer for gender-based discrimination.
Things go badly for the employer, he finds. It seems that maternity leave and care for the children cannot be counted against the woman, therefore the employer if forced to settle. And sadly, his once successful business is forced to close its doors forcing all his former employees to look for new jobs.
Except for the woman. In light of her fat settlement she is able to hire a nanny and remain a stay-at-home mom. Or to be more precise, a stay-on-the-sofa mom, as the nanny essentially raises her little girl, while Mommy-dearest devours Whitman's Samplers.
As you might imagine, her new found sedentary lifestyle and diet of chocolates has caused the woman to put on a few pounds, and her once-svelte frame of 105 pounds now strains the couch at a whopping 415 pounds.
As you might further imagine, her husband is not happy with this. His once sweet and curvaceous wife, in addition to becoming a braying harridan and having gained over 300 pounds, now refuses to give him blow-jobs!
After weeks of relentless pleading with his wife to get off the sofa, he gives and simply wants out.
His wife files for divorce (once again retaining Isab), and the judge takes a rather dim view of man's predicament.
And he is even less sympathetic after the woman's testimony, "He...he...called me a cooooow!" she wailed, in a voice that rocked the rafters. "And he...he...he said...I was...faaaaaaaat!"
Her word, of course, is unconditionally accepted, despite the fact that her bewildered husband had no recollection of ever using those words.
Reminding the husband that obesity is considered a disability and his vows included "in sickness and in health," the judge awards the woman 75% of his income, the house, both cars and sole custody.
And the woman lived happily ever after...everyone else, not so much.
Patrick at January 30, 2014 6:40 PM
Well, Patrick, that covers everything.
Way to make up for lost time :)
Michelle at January 30, 2014 8:25 PM
There was a whole bunch of fabulism in that SOTU speech. Obama also repeated the fraudulent "global warming is settled science" lie.
Cousin Dave at January 31, 2014 8:31 AM
Really, Dave?
What part about, "When you set fire to something, the fire is the hot part" do you not get?
Radwaste at January 31, 2014 10:54 AM
Raf, I think Dave was commenting not on global warming in and of itself (of course there is warming)
But the liberal perception that "ITS ALL HUMANANITYS FAULT AND IF WE DONT DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW ALL LIFE ON EARTH WILL DIE AND THE PLANET WILL EXPLODE AND THE SAND SIZED PARTICLES OF EARTH WILL SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE UNIVERSE KILLING ALL LIFE AND SHREDDING THE SPACE TIME CONTINUUM UNTIL REALITY ITSELF HAS BEEN DESTROYED"
Given the last interglaical period 130,000 to 110,000 years ago was warm enough for hippos to make it to Scandinavia, and the last paper to the subject claim it will take another century of global warming to heat the temperature of the oceans to where it was 600 years ago in the 1500s those of us capable of doing math are sick of the Chicken Little experience
lujlp at January 31, 2014 11:28 AM
"Raf, I think Dave was commenting not on global warming in and of itself (of course there is warming)"
Actually, according to the satellite data, there has been no trend since 1996. The global-warming scammers are going nuts trying to explain this away; the heat is "hiding" in the oceans or some such bullshit. At this point it appears likely that pretty much all climate change is the result of solar activity and the precession of the Earth's axis. Earth's atmosphere has built-in mechanisms for regulating CO2 -- if it didn't, life on Earth would not have lasted long enough for Homo sapiens to evolve.
Cousin Dave at January 31, 2014 12:37 PM
Thanks, Michelle. Was hoping Amy would notice the reference to having gained three hundred pounds, no longer sweet and refusing to give blow-jobs.
Patrick at January 31, 2014 1:03 PM
Cousin, that's a "two wrongs" argument.
As I mentioned at the link, you would never excuse the factory for emitting sulfur dioxide just because a volcano does it.
Do you know how many liters of carbon dioxide your car emits for each pound of fuel it burns? When you look at a picture of the night side of Earth from space, do you understand how much energy those lights represent?
I find that most people debating this issue cannot even understand the difference between "heat" and "temperature". I hope that you do.
Meanwhile, heat flows from hot to cold. We generate heat on the surface of the earth which has not been done before. That's pretty much all there is to it. What remains is argument about what to do next, not what is actually happening.
Radwaste at February 1, 2014 11:56 PM
Leave a comment