I always get a kick out of articles like this one that suggests that women are underpaid compared to men.
In the 21-page study, done by consultants Taj C. Carson and Lynne Nemeth, one chart shows that in measuring men's and women's incomes by educational level, there is approximately a $36,000-a-year income gap between the genders among people with the most education - graduate or professional degrees.
The gist of this article is that we must “do something” about the fact that women make less than men. In other words, there is some kind of social injustice going on here. Fact is, there are a myriad of reasons why women might make less than men and to narrowly focus on gender (even when factoring in education level) is foolish. If a disparity in pay between men and women exists, one possible explanation may be that many women take the dominant role in childcare. As a result of this, a working mother generally requires more flexibility as far as what hours they are able to work and whether or not they can travel. This flexibility would come at the cost of decreased pay.
At the end of the day, everyone is paid based on their productivity. If a woman is paid less than a man, it is because she is less productive for whatever reason. Think about it: if women would do the same amount of work as men, but for less money, that would be a tremendous profit opportunity. Anyone, man or woman, could start a company and hire women for a higher salary that what they make now but less than what men make. Since costs would be low, this new company would burst on the scene and decimate the competition. Riches galore!
At any rate, I am happy to have a job where I do not to have to wear a suit or carry a blackberry. I feel sorry for the poor saps that have to do that. ;-)
18 comments:
Freemarket, I believe you have reversed the chicken with the egg.
When the decision arises with regards to primary caregiver role, such a decision is often based on who the bigger wage earner is. More often than not, a decision is made to preserve the larger income in a two income family. Very often, the woman makes less money and therefore, takes the career hit because of the child. The lower pay came first.
Your statement “if woman is paid less than a man, it is because she is less productive for whatever reason” is offensive on so many levels. You place too much faith in the “free market” and in the motivations of people to make money. There are plenty of people out there who make decisions regardless of fiscal impact, based on gender and racial bias. That you fail to see gender bias in the workplace speaks only to your lack of awareness, as a male, thus far.
Well said 5th and north.
I will actually stop reading this blog because I find the statement, "“if woman is paid less than a man, it is because she is less productive for whatever reason”, completely offensive.
I thought you were much better than this Freemarket...
Women are going to kick your butt on this one FM.
Women know they are the most valuable
asset in any culture, and the most unappreciated.
We may never be able to compensate fairly, but we should try, and not just to be nice, but because it is the right thing to do to make society more productive.People who give more than 100%, especially as caregivers should be awarded for their efforts. I bet even Adam Smith would agree
5th, I believe you are just perpetuating stereotypes. But rather than argue with you, I’ll just ask you to show me I am wrong. Show me an example of anyone who has exploited this “gender and racial bias” to make a profit. If “there are plenty of people out there who make decisions regardless of fiscal impact”, as you say, there is also plenty profit opportunity to exploit those fiscally irresponsible bigots.
FM, actually, it is you that are perpetuating stereotypes by implicating that women, in making the choice to reproduce, become less productive. That is a battle that women- with or without child- battle regularly. It is why is it is now against the law for an interviewer to ask any questions with regards to a woman's procreation status. Employers discriminate against women based on whether or not they have children or ever plan to.
I don't have any examples of people exploiting gender bias to make a profit, as that is your suggestion, not mine. I do have examples of employers treating two similarly qualified individuals differently with regards to title and salary, based on gender. This was not a rational, profit-driven decision, but rather a decision based on the long-held belief that women are inferior to men in the professional workforce.
5th, some women who have children choose to devote more time to their family instead of their career. As a result, those women can become less productive at work (they are unable to work late and so forth). Men who make the same choice are less productive as well. I don’t understand why some folks are offended that more productive people are paid more. My boss is a woman, who makes more than I do because she is more productive. Should I be offended? Would you have been offended if I said that a woman who is more productive than a man would be paid more than the man would? Productivity is the driving factor of wages, not gender.
Why aren’t you exploiting this gender bias in pay, if you are so sure it exists? I have given you this great money making opportunity and you are unwilling to take advantage of it. Too afraid to put your money where your mouth is?
If you know of anyone who is being paid less simply because of their gender, the victim should sue. If they don’t want to deal with the legal fees (who could blame them), why don’t they simply get a new job?
A year or so back, I attended a "meet the author" event with a gentleman who'd written a book about earning discrepancies between men and women. This guy had been a board member with NOW (or a similar such group). I don't remember his exact story. I just remember that his credentials as a P.C. Boomer were laudable.
What I remember from his findings is that pay discrepancy often has to do with danger on the job, and that women, when they choose "dangerous jobs," e.g., those exposing them to toxic chemicals, often earn more than their male counterparts.
As someone who has, personally, written 1000+ resumes over the years, and as someone who is a new -- and traditional -- media marketing consulting, I always take any presentation of data with a grain of salt. Why? Because messages and conclusions always reflect how the question was framed, which, by nature, includes bias. Still, it was some pretty interesting information.
The book, for those with any interest to delve deeper, is called "Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap And What Women Can Do About It."
PS -- My name, Jessie, often leads folk to believe I'm male. I'm quite the girl, quite the goddess and totally XY. A women's studies major in my college days, with an interdisciplinary degree in "Technology and Culture," I've come to hold, what I consider, a more full-spectrum approach now vs. my earlier days of culturally acceptable male bashing. But that's a much longer conversation, isn't it?
Rock on, Freemarket. Sometimes ya gotta say things that provoke people's emotions to get a conversation going ... at least that's how I see it. :)
I'm linking to my ultra-fem website here.
FM, can you admit that, outside of your particular vantage point, that there is job discrimination out there? Just because YOU haven't been a victim, and your boss isn't currently a victim, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
If you'll reread my post, you'll notice that I don't apply my statements to all workers. You do. You say that if women, plural, are paid less, it is because they are less productive. Yes, some are. So are some men. However, you fail to admit that there ARE plenty of people out there who discriminate, either in lower pay or lower title.
Oh, and Jessie, "XY" refers to the male chromosome.
And what is with the "too afraid to put your money with your mouth is" comment?
Are we resorting to Berkhouse-like scare tactics and insults now?
“You say that if women, plural, are paid less, it is because they are less productive.”
Uh, no. I said:
“If a woman is paid less than a man, it is because she is less productive for whatever reason.” Singular.
To answer your question, sure, I agree that there is some gender discrimination in the workplace. It is a rare occurrence- the majority of employers don’t do it. People win lawsuits by suing those who do discriminate.
You are lucky to be so sheltered.
Yes, if I disagree with you I must be sheltered.
No, just fortunate enough not to have been paid less for the same work, or been given less opportunity because of your parts.
FYI, the link to Jessie's ultra fem website can be found here.
And Jessie thanks 5th and North for the clarification about my chromosomes! And freemarket for fixing my link.
Certainly there is discrimination.
But also, women choose fields that make less money even if they have the same education as men in higher paid positions, according to what I've read (I'm a woman).
From personal experience, I can say that women approach work completely differently than men. Decisions to "do what I like" rather than "enter a very lucrative field" are repeatedly heard from women friends and relatives. My perspective is quite different: I work to earn a living and so make as much money as possible as a priority. I'm not here to play tennis, so I don’t subscribe to the "doing what I like" objective put forth by my colleagues. Consequently, I'm paid very well.
But to deny that discrimination happens is innocent (can't we give him the benefit of the doubt?)
Anonymous 6:07
Refreshing, interesting and informative. Thanks for your honest approach.
Post a Comment