Claims of gender-based pay discrimination are phony

President Obama once released an ad stating:

President Obama knows that women being paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men isn’t just unfair, it hurts families. So the first law he signed was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to help ensure that women are paid the same as men for doing the exact same work.

He’s not alone in making this sort of assertion; countless sources have made similar claims of pay discrimination leading to women earning less. Jon Stewart mentions this factoid constantly. John Oliver too.

All of them are wrong. There is no evidence of widespread pay discrimination against women.

According to a report from Obama’s own administration, “On average in 2012, women made about 81 percent of the median earnings of male full-time wage and salary workers ($854).” So that certainly proves that Obama was wrong when he used the “77 cents” figure, many, many times. But does it prove gender-based discrimination?

Far from it. If one assumes that men and women should earn identical amounts, there’s an implicit assumption that men and women do identical work. In reality, different types of work are expected to deliver different salaries or wages. Since women and men aren’t identical, no one would reasonable expect their wages and salaries to be identical.

For example, the average man is bigger, taller, and physically stronger than the average woman. There are many jobs where physical strength and size matter. One would logically expect the average man to be better at those jobs than the average woman. There’s a reason why Lebron James earns a lot more than any female athlete: he’s a better athlete. It has nothing to do with gender discrimination.

Then there’s the question of mental differences between the average man and average woman. This is thorny question because in the past, much misogynist garbage has been advanced as fact on this issue. But people being wrong about what the mental differences are between typical men and women does not prove that there aren’t any. For example, it may be the case that men are more willing to take physical risks than women. Risky jobs such as deep-sea fishing or oil rig work are done overwhelmingly by men. These jobs pay more than jobs requiring the same education but less risk, so in that education bracket men may earn more than women. Once again it has nothing to do with gender discrimination.

It’s often discussed why there are so few women in tech fields like computer programming and engineering, which tend to have high salaries. Merely mentioning the possibility that this is because of different mental skill sets between genders can be hazardous to one’s career, as Larry Summers found out. But just because some parties want to silence any debate on the topic, doesn’t mean that there aren’t any differences worth considering. Female students outnumber males at most top colleges and universities, but females are much less likely to select tech fields. It can scarcely be because they lack the opportunity, when all fields are open to all students.

There’s another difference between women and men worth noting. Only women can get pregnant, and women on average take far more time off from work for childcare. Since more experience leads to higher pay, this is another factor that causes average men to be paid more than average women.

All told, once all the facts about differences between genders are taken into account, the supposed pay gap shrinks to a very small number, or possibly zero. And no one seems to understand this better than President Obama … sometimes. Five years after promising that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would “help ensure that women are paid the same”, he was advancing new legislation that would do exactly what he previously claimed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would do. (He did not explain why the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act had failed.) Someone dug into the data on salaries in the White House and, surprise, surprise, Obama pays his female employees less than male ones, on average. White House Press Secretary was left to stumble through an explanation for why a pay gap was okay for the White House. If we just applied the same logic to the nation as a whole, we’d realize that the “pay gap” is not evidence of gender discrimination at all.

Yeah, I agree with pretty much everything here. That’s not to say that discrimination doesn’t exist, but the " .77 on the dollar" statistic is up there with the “one in four college women is raped” as an extremely dubious claim.

I’m not opposed to a meaningful debate over actual discrimination, should it exist, but liberals do themselves a disservice by promoting bogus and incorrect statistics. It merely serves to polarize the electorate into those who believe the claim and those who reject it, causing the two sides to lack common ground and lowering the quality of democratic discourse.

I too would like to see more accurate, current data. I am not disputing a gender pay gap exists I would just like to see it discusses accurately.

All this is accurate and current. It’s just that most people don’t understand that a difference in means between two populations is not evidence of discrimination.

Of course, its hard for any politician or pundit to go up there and try to explain to people how to control for other variables, and what regressions do, and why it may or may not be so that even though a difference between 2 groups exists, it doesn’t imply much.

So these sound byte persist because they are easy to transmit to the average person.

[quote=“ITR_champion, post:1, topic:724017”]

President Obama once released an ad stating:

President Obama knows that women being paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men isn’t just unfair, it hurts families. So the first law he signed was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to help ensure that women are paid the same as men for doing the exact same work.

He’s not alone in making this sort of assertion; countless sources have made similar claims of pay discrimination leading to women earning less. Jon Stewart mentions this factoid constantly. John Oliver too.

As I read President Obama’s statement, he’s saying that “women being paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men isn’t just unfair, it hurts families”. Which part of this, exactly, do you dispute? Do you dispute that such a situation is unfair? Or perhaps you would counter the claim that it hurts families? :dubious:

Ok, but is there any data that shows, for example, a large company, like google or ford motors, what the average pay male vs female, for an engineer is, 5 years out of a top level college, graduating in the top 10% of their class?

Mental skill sets don’t have to be different for women to make different choices than men.

Otherwise, yes the number is exaggerated, differences are not all attributable to discrimination. The actual discrimination tends exist in particular industries or circumstances.

The “for doing the same work”. That’s flat out false.

The rest is irrelevant, once this part is shown to be false.

I would have to guess no, since firms don’t give out that stuff. But you don’t need that data to still test the argument, since you have aggregate data for the whole population

nm

Ok, well, can you elaborate a little bit. And are you saying:

1- There is no pay gap at all for the same work
2- There is a pay gap but it is small/exaggerated
3- Or are you saying something else?

The evidence shows that the more variables you add to control for other reasons why there are differences in pay, the more the “gap” shrinks towards nothing.

This means that the gap is explainable by other factors other then gender.

Most studies show that there remains a very small gap (in the low single digits) after controlling for as many factors as can be gained from the BLS data. That still doesn’t mean that there aren’t other variables which cannot be observed, that lead to this gap, other than gender.

Most studies also show that at early career levels, women actually make more then men, controlling for everything else (that can be controlled for).

The best studies for these are cohort studies, where they compare men and women at starting points in their careers. But even these can’t be done over time, and can’t include all the possible variables that may lead to the gap (i.e. you can’t really do an individual specific effect because there aren’t enough observations per individual).

If there was gender discrimination you’d see it specifically at the beginning of a career. over time individual effects become larger (and unobservable). But these studies show no gap (and in fact slight lead for females).

So we have to look at the empirical evidence.

I work in tech, where all kinds of gender discrimination is rampant. Sticking to wage discrimination:

Wage gap of up to 61% in Silicon Valley

Men with graduate degrees earn 74% more than women with the same degrees

The wage wage gaps are there in tech, and they’re not going away.

The OP also alludes to possible differences in the skill sets of the genders, and seems to be arguing that women are not either able to handle technical careers or are not selecting them.

This report from the AAUW discusses some of the factors the lead to lower prevalence of women in STEM jobs, and it has nothing to do with aptitude.

Girls are studying math and science, and performing well, in higher and higher numbers, but that is not reflected in the workforce. According to studies referenced in the report, employers offered identically qualified male and female employees are more likely to choose the male. Employers also routinely overestimated the technical skills of males over their female counterparts.

Another component is culture in tech. Women are not welcome. The AAUW article references it. This article Does a decent job of touching on some the cultural issues that prevent women from succeeding in technical fields.

To summarize, I categorically reject the notion that there is not gender-based wage disparity. I also find the OP’s assertions about why women aren’t adequately represented in tech to be naive at best.

wow

You can categorically reject it, but that doesn’t change the fact that it just isn’t there.

Especially in tech:

The confusion seems to arise from the term “wage gap”. The fact that a “wage gap” exists…doesn’t mean it is “gender based” or “discrimination” or because of the person’s gender.

parallel job titles…
well perhaps men are given better jobs than women

Your article is a year older than the several I provided. It also seems to only look at one year post graduation. I’m sticking with my contention that gender -based wage gap exists in Silicon Valley.

Having participated in a recent salary survey process, Robert163 disparate titles can certainly be one aspect, although I’ve seen that impact men and women equally. That’s just a personal anecdote, though.

“Men with graduate degrees earn 74% more than women with the same degrees”

Paying people based on their degrees instead of the performance at the jobs they do is a poor business model, and the pay difference doesn’t have to be due to discrimination.

“Wage gap of up to 61% in Silicon Valley” is as meaningful as “Save up to 61%” in a sale ad and not at all an indication of discrimination.

and how did they determine that men are 74% better at performance???

That’s fine if you want to stick with it, but the empirical evidence doesn’t support it.

Yes, it looks at 1 year after graduation. Because as I said earlier, this is where you’d expect to be able to capture the “gender” discount. 10 years down the road, there are lots of things that may lead to divergent pay rates for individuals: experience, number of hours worked, skills gained, personal relationships etc.

Many of those things won’t be able to be observed by researchers who are working with archival data.

But at 1 year post graduation, men and women are “the same” in terms of the skills, qualifications, hours worked and relationships. I.e., this is where you should expect to find it…if at all.

So their research methodology is actually more sound than looking at other time periods.

It’s like first impressions. If you think there’s prejudices, they’re more likely to appear at the first moment of contact, not after 10 years of a relationship.

For parallel job titles, they’re still getting paid the same, however (all else being equal).

Firms figure out what to pay people based on performance. They have their criteria.

Yes, of course, but are men being hired more preferentially for the same job title?