I remember reading a study a couple of years ago that indicated that save for a few groups (something like women over 55 earning minimum wage and CEOs of companies over a certain size) that once everything was factored in (e.g. years on the job less leave) that for the same job women earned $0.98 to the men's $1 - and they earned more per actual hour worked. When it was broken down to age groups, it showed that women in the youngest group (something like 35 down) made more on average then the men. the middle group was about even. There was also differences per career.

One women I used to work with had two troubled pregnancies in a row so she was basically not at work for 3 years in row. Yet she was pissed that she was not getting raises like the other people and threatened to quit! Another women wanted to join our teach as a software developer yet she had been out of the job (at home with the kids) for a number of years (about 7) and inisted that she get paid more then the rest of us because she had more experiance. Basically she was a junior person who had to be trained up because her skills where so out of date (and I doubt she was all that great before). Yet the company hired her because it would look good to have another female in the software development department.

The idea of the pay-gap just won't die, despite numerous studies that show exactly what Cathy Young says: there is no such thing.

The one thing she gets wrong is: "The jury is still out on the nature-vs.-nurture debate..." This is just as clear: your character and potential capabilities are inborn. Innumerable studies have proven this beyond any doubt. And any parent with more than one child can surely attest to the fact that their children's characters are clear - and different - from a very early age.

As long as you provide an environment where the child can flourish, the child will grow after his or her own pattern.

Who still supports the idea of nurture? These people must either be childless, or parents with an inflated sense of their own importance.

No, bradley - they are people who want to take all children as wards of the state.

Why do I get a creepy feeling that Obama's going to be issuing brown jerseys to his minions?

You know, I've experienced this myself in the workplace. I think the two comments above illustrate an aspect of the problem that has *never* been addressed: leadership.
A good leader would set fair standards for all workers and strive to find an appropriate and fair role for a worker with longterm family conflicts. But this never seems to happen. Instead, the work of the person with conflicts is frequently off-loaded onto childless workers, who are then pressured and socialized into "admiring" or "appreciating" the conflicted worker.
In one place I worked, by the time the mothering-conflicted employees became empty-nesters, they were so accustomed to reduced expectations that they simply continued to take extra time off and spend just as much time on personal errands at work as they did in the past. That they could get away with such behavior is primarily a failure of *leadership*.
(I suspect it was also partially behind the high turnover of gay and childless workers at this office.)
Now, that said, there are PLENTY of workers with family stresses out there that are EXEMPLARY. As with so many other things, a few bad apples ruin the reputation of the whole group.
And they wouldn't have a chance to ruin it with better leadership.

The big reasons I've observed for the "lack of leadership" that Lynne describes well are two: fear of legal action and laziness on the part of managers.

The threat of legal action by any "aggrieved" party is so palpable that it has reduced most HR people, and by extension, the managers they service, to sniveling cowards that are basically afraid of their own shadows. Instead of having basic principles of fairness, consistently applied, and sticking by them, these people fold like a cheap suit at the first suggestion of litigation or similar action.

Notwithstanding this, employers could still defend themselves if they'd just take the time and trouble to document each instance that employees are taking unfair advantage ("compile a dossier"). But managers are, in the main, too busy or too lazy to do this, and thus it is too hard for employers to defend themselves in court on to governmental agencies without this documentation.

If I'm ever managing people, they'll all know that I'm keeping a dossier on them. They'll also know that they don't need to fear having it used against them, UNLESS they start some ridiculous discrimination crap.

"I don't think anybody who's giving their divided self to a job should make as much or expect as much as somebody who's giving their job their all. Do you?"

It is not a one-variable world, Ms. Alkon.

Assuming the two hypothetical people are doing the same hypothetical job, it then depends largely on the talent required to do the job and the pople involved. A standard office job is more about attendance, reasonable attention to detail, and organization. You can still have some variance in ability, but the key variable for most people will be the amount of time they put into it.

Some jobs, however, require talent more than attendance. Anyone who has had such a job and was good at it relative to peers knows that talent is not distributed evenly in the population.

There are often "strivers" in those talent-dependent fields, who work really hard, but simply do not have the chops for the job. Once a striver hits their limit of competence (or exceeds it), that person typically compensates by working even harder. They just cannot figure out why their tone-deafness should keep them from lead chair for the trumpet section. After all, they work the hardest, right? Right?!

Layer on the additional factor of families, and things get complicated. You could have a talented part-time person with kids who is worth more than a 24/7/365 dedicated striver. (I have seen it.) The striver typically won't see it, though, and gets even more angry that their dedication is not rewarded. They fail to see that effort only takes you so far.

Conversely, you may get talented people who do slack a bit, since they know their relative advantage over the strivers allows them to not work as hard but still get equal or better results. Life ain't fair that way.

Add gender to the mix--along with discrimination laws--and look out.

Also, the worst colleague in the world is a striver who decided to have kids. Double whammy: they cannot see their talent deficit. And they often get resentful if others don't "support them" in their decision to have kids.

I agree with the earlier poster that leadership can often help us avoid some of the worst problems in the workplace. Like a good coach of a team, managers can help people understand that, sorry, some people may simply run faster, throw harder and hit better than you do, no matter how hard you work compared to them. While there is a place for talent and hard work on most teams, you need both--or just a whole lot of the former--to be a starter. So work hard, keep your mouth shut, and good things will happen if you have the chops.

But most managers suck, and are simply worker drones with years behind them, not leaders.

Stirring up emotions over the "pay gap" is a another way to keep the population divided and angry.

Get the people hating or resenting a significant portion of the population ("them")and sell yourself as the champion of the resenters and you've got political power.

Do it on a grand scale and you've got real power. Hitler did it with the Jews and communists. Peron did it with the oligarchy. Lenin did it with the bourgeoisie. Mugabe did it with white farmers.

Keep an eye on how many groups the power structure stirs up anger and resentment toward and ask yourself why you're supposed to hate those groups.

We have certainly come a long way since the day when my mother was told to her face: "This job would pay a man $7000; we can offer you $5600."

I suspect that kind of thing will have to be further behind us before people stop seeing ghosts of it in misleading statistics.

"women still earn just 78 cents for every dollar men make"

A number extruded through torturous statistical dodges.

One example: the military is excluded.

Conan -

Given the editorial cartoon by Oliphant last week, I'd say Jews are on the block for another go round.

How ironic... the middle-aged mother of three that they've hired to "help" me around the office just left... at 2:30... because her youngest son needs to go to the dentist.

I am astounded at the idiocy (and/or mendacity) of those (including the POTUS and VPOTUS) who point to the overall earning differential between the sexes and cry "anti-female discrimination."

Given that women SPEND the vast majority of the money earned by both sexes, and control a MAJORITY of the wealth in the U.S., the earnings differential is actually the measure of women's greater privileges and work/life options as compared to men.

If women were forced to earn money that was primarily spent by men, all while men gained control of the majority of U.S. wealth, we would still be hearing women's complaints about the earnings gap -- but only in reverse!

Also, if Obama and his feminist handlers really want to fix the "gap," women should be prepared for what happens next: they will have to step up and start accepting the same risk of vocational death and injury as do men; they will have to start working MUCH more overtime; they will have to take MUCH more time away from their children, they will have to start dying from stress diseases at an increased rate, etc. Then, things will be more fair, don't you think?

As soon as men can figure out a way to give women toasted ice (or find an alternate source of p*ssy), things will be MUCH better.

As soon as men can figure out a way to give women toasted ice (or find an alternate source of p*ssy), things will be MUCH better.

See also - Scott Adams' prediction:

The moment virtual reality becomes cheaper than dating, the human race is doomed.

Holy crap, can somebody at mainstram media PLEASE quote the TRUTH already and let this dinosaur issue die. Men and women who have equal experience, qualifications and commitment (hours spent at work) get paid the SAME.

Do people really buy that women make 78cents to men? If so, wouldn't the companies all be hiring women to SAVE money? And wouldn't that be a distinct disadvantage to men?

>>The moment virtual reality becomes cheaper than dating, the human race is doomed.

Or - looking on the bright side here, Brian - it'll weed out those who shouldn't be in the human dating pool in the first place!

I am angry that Spartee has deprived me of a good 10-20 minutes worth of procrastination by writing everything I wanted to write. Damn you Spartee!

I am angry that Spartee has deprived me of a good 10-20 minutes worth of procrastination by writing everything I wanted to write. Damn you Spartee!

Sorry about the double post. Damn me too!

“If some unemployed punk in New Jersey can get a cassette to make love to Elle McPherson for $19.95, this virtual reality stuff is going to make crack look like Sanka.” -- Dennis Miller

My wife makes about 40 K a year more than me. Why: She is an engineer and I'm not, and I went to Grad School and then ended up being a stay at home Dad for several years before I re-entered the work force. So, that explains our pay gap. Do y'all feel sorry for me? I don't either!

I agree that many women earn less because they take more time off for kid stuff. But, back when I was a single kidless gal, I can't tell you how many coworkers would show up hungover and/or late DAILY, and someone had to pick up their crap too. It's not all breeders, or only breeders, who don't carry their load.

I am a very efficient and talented girl, and can do most jobs in much less time than others, so I don't see why I should have to stick around and make-work when I've done mine, just to fill out a day. I once figured out, during wasted time in a college class, that had I been allowed to work at my own pace, I could have graduated high school in 2 years and college in a little under 3. If I can do my work well in half the time it takes you, who are you to bitch?

But back to topic, the gender wage gap is untrue crap, yes.

"so I don't see why I should have to stick around and make-work when I've done mine, just to fill out a day."

Because, sometimes, part of the job is BEING THERE. Who ends up with the project that lands at 5:15? Not the mommies who left at 3. If you're being paid by the amount of work being done, then by all means, let people make their own schedule. That's not always the case, though.

(It takes me about 3 hours to do everything I need to every day. Maybe less. It's my job to BE AT THE OFFICE when things come up.) Really, do you honestly think that everyone else wouldn't get their shit done in half the time if they could leave as soon as they were done?

Oh, momof3, we're utterly gonna agree on that one. That is a pet peeve of mine.

I'm the same way, organize it, get it done and over with. I don't mind staying so much but then they start wanting you to pick up the lazy one's work. That's what really annoys. Did your work? Now do what she didn't while yakking on phones to friends, flirting with every male that walks in the place and taking numeours coffee/cigarette breaks. Instead of daring to draw a deep breath.

No wonder I love being in the only secretary in the place now.

I do think this issue is rather beating a dead horse and will only get more so as us babyboomers retire out of the workforce. We're the generation where half of us bucked the system and went into fields previously dominated by men and half stuck with female positions.

I like being a secretary. (Well, did; I am getting rather sick of it.) So I'm not complaining. Do I make less than most men? Yes. But that's also because I'm not willing to shoulder more responsibility, take more risks, supervise other employees, and work longer hours. I definitely could make what they do if I were willing to do all that. Since I'm not, I shouldn't make what they do. In my case, I willingly forfeit the extra money because I value free time more. Shrug. To each their own.

JML, lol. One of our maintenance guys has a wife who's an executive. He's not complaining. He's enjoying the big house and the cruises. And not complaining about his kids' college expenses the way the other maintenance guy (whose wife is a self-entitled asshole who has him utterly pussy-whipped) is. But he does work the long hours. Maintenance here and part-time at a grocery store. They both put in and both seem happy with the arrangement. Of course, he can hold an intelligent conversation too.

"the middle-aged mother of three that they've hired to "help" me around the office just left... at 2:30... because her youngest son needs to go to the dentist."

So do you want to giver her enough of a raise that she can afford a stay at home husband, or at least a nanny? A little flexibility is probably cheaper. I personally don't want to see the economy contract to the point where families can live on 60% of what they make now and we can't afford 60% raises. So we're pretty much stuck with working parents. Fortunately these problems can be managed, she should be using her sick leave in this instance. And well organized companies have incentive programs to discourage abuse of sick leave. Where I work we have a year end bonus program. Employees who use 0 hours get a large bonus, employees who use a couple of days get a small bonus and those of us who have to ferry kids to the dentist get squat. As it should be.

So yeah, it all comes down to leadership.

my company equates sick leave to vacation. ie, they just give us extra vacation every year, and then when we take personal days, for whatever reasons, ferrying kids to the dentist, or protesting spendulous on tax day, we charge it to vacation.

i haven't seen in this thread yet the fact that men who earn more than their female counterparts frequently garner that higher pay due to a hardship of some sort. as an example, oil rig workers pretty much make the same, but oil rig workers on an offshore platform make more. women don't usually work as oil rig workers, but an ever smaller percent go for the extra pay offshore, much less arctic.

and i state this after returning from baghdad and visually looking at the, oh, 90-95 percent male workforce there. those girls who were there with me? they made the same.

Um, mlah, did you notice in my list of things I won't do to garner the same pay as men there was a little item about not being willing to take the same risks? What did you think I meant by that?

Smurfy, there are only 5 people in the company. I didn't hire her. I'd have hired a 22-year old fresh out of college. Her kid is in highschool; he doesn't need a nanny.

Amazing blog! Is your theme custom made or did you download it from somewhere? A theme like yours with a few simple adjustements would really make my blog stand out. Please let me know where you got your design. Many thanks