Whenever someone brings up the subject of gender pay inequity, I always offer the same challenge: Which companies are discriminating against women?
Name names.
Which companies are breaking federal law by paying women who have the same experience, background, and length of service in the same job as their male counterparts? Who are these lawbreakers?
I never get a response.
Because no laws are being broken.
Because women who have the same experience, background, and length of service in the same job as their male counterparts are being paid equally.
That being the case, I still see liberals bring the subject up. To score points with that aging block of activists who call themselves feminists.
Speaking of which, in comes the
Roanoke Times:
The lag in women's pay
editorial
Studies routinely show that women make less money than men in the same occupation, but accounting for the gender gap is devilishly difficult.
Women can fall behind by choice -- jumping on the Mommy Track, switching jobs to advance a spouse's career, becoming a family caretaker, any number of personal reasons -- or because of differences in education and skill levels.
Or because of simple, insidious pay discrimination.
A study by the progressive Commonwealth Institute for Fiscal Analysis, released last week in advance of Labor Day, suggests Virginia might have some work to do regarding the latter. The findings bear further investigation. [link]
Yeah, beat that dead horse.
As long as I'm not paying for it, knock yourself out.
"Insidious pay discrimination" is a serious charge. Can anyone in this "
progressive" (alarm bells should be going off) Commonwealth Institute for Fiscal Analysis tell us, after having done its exhaustive study, which companies are insidiously discriminating?
Of course not.
The leadership thereof is playing the same tired games they've always played. Level a charge. Keep it vague. Denounce, denounce, denounce.
Want the truth?
The truth:
Hiding the Truth About the Pay Gap Between Men and Women
A study on the gender wage gap has been removed from the website of the Labor Department — and the timing is suspicious.
By Michael J. Eastman
Paying someone less because of their sex is illegal and two federal laws, the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, provide the framework whereby victims of pay discrimination can seek redress. However, some argue that these two laws are not effective at eradicating pay discrimination and that the laws must be changed. Central to their argument is the so-called “pay gap,” the difference between the average earnings of men and women.
The argument that the pay gap must be closed rests on the assumption that the pay gap is largely attributable to employer discrimination. However, if the pay gap is to be used to justify such significant changes in the law, it seems entirely appropriate to examine the pay gap itself. Does it really measure employer discrimination? Do other factors play a greater or lesser role?
Economists who have studied the pay gap have observed that numerous factors other than discrimination contribute to the wage gap, such as hours worked, experience, and education. For example, Professor June O’Neil has written extensively about how time out of the workforce, or years spent working part-time, can reduce future pay. Likewise, economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth, in her book Women’s Figures, has written about the decisions that women are more likely to make to choose flexibility, a friendly workplace environment, and other nonmonetary factors as compared to men.
Recognizing the importance of unbiased research on the pay gap, the Labor Department recently contracted with CONSAD Research Corporation for a review of more than 50 existing studies as well as a new economic and statistical analysis of the pay gap. CONSAD’s Report, which was finalized on January 12, 2009, found that the vast majority of the pay gap is due to several identifiable factors and that the remainder may be due to other specific factors they were not able to measure.
CONSAD found that controlling for career interruption and other factors reduced the pay gap from about 20 percent to about 5 percent. Data limitations prevented it from considering many other factors. For example, the data did not permit an examination of total compensation, which would examine health insurance and other benefits, and instead focused solely on wages paid. The data were also limited with respect to work experience, job tenure, and other factors.
The Labor Department’s conclusion was that the gender pay gap was the result of a multitude of factors and that the “raw wage gap should not be used as the basis for [legislative] correction. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers.”
The Labor Department’s new report is clearly an important contribution to the debate over pay equity. But where is it? Although it was posted on the Labor Department’s web site just days after it was finalized, it was apparently removed as the transition in power was occurring between former President Bush and President Obama. We don’t know why the report was taken down, but certainly the timing is suspicious.
If the debate over pay equity is to be at the forefront of the Congressional agenda, then the Labor Department and the new administration need to acknowledge that the overwhelming evidence is that the pay gap is not based primarily on employer discrimination. Disclosure of the Labor Department’s report would be a good first step. [link]
I'd venture a guess and assert that if
all factors could be considered (other than discrimination), that pay gap would be reduced from the original twenty percent to five percent to
zero.
Zero.
There is no there there. There hasn't been for decades. Yet the "progressive" (read imbecilic) left persists in claiming that women are being discriminated against in the workplace.
Again I challenge them: Name names.
Name names.