Would it surprise you to hear this:
“The [Paycheck Fairness Act] bill pushed by the Obama Administration fails to address any of the central reasons that women are paid less than men.”
?? Well, it might shock you that it was the Liberal New York Times that wrote that sentence this month. The Times did note that Obama is pushing the bill hard--O is saying it is the answer to getting equal pay for equal work. The Times, in a rare moment of honesty also admits that the Paycheck Fairness Act is a bill that will do nothing to equalize pay for women—it is just more empty pandering to women who they believe are JUST that dumb to believe a bill with a catchy name will equalize female pay.
Of course FemiSex wants equal pay for equal work. Who the fuck doesn’t? But let’s turn to the Times for why the bill is political football and not real solution:
Most economists believe the gap between women’s and men’s wages does not stem primarily from employers paying women less than men for the same job. It occurs mostly because men and women take different jobs and follow different career paths. Part of this difference may be a result of discrimination in hiring and promoting. Much, though, is a result of the constraints of motherhood.
OK… so the Times gets a lot wrong here by not admitting that women shy away from high-yield jobs because they don’t think they’ll stand a chance in the end game of promotions against men.
And ..that men are more heavily promoted which is the main reason high pay goes to men. It is not because Suzy secretary makes less than Jon secretary but… because Jon secretary is far more likely to be promoted from secretary to account supervisor and then to sales manager and then to regional sales manager and to have a wife who teaches so she can be home with the kids in the summer while he travels to 19 different cities.
The Pander to Women with talk about Paycheck Fairness act does not one damn thing about the preference of employers to promote men. It just says that Suzy and Jon—while they both have the same job as secretary must be paid the same…which for the most part they are. Jon just moves up and onward in pay when he’s promoted.
More from the NYTimes:
...mandating equal pay for equal work is unlikely to make much of a difference.
Teasing out pay discrimination is tough because many attributes and behaviors may account for differences in pay. Women choose different educational paths than men. Female engineers earn considerably more than female educators straight out of college. Nonetheless, women account for only 18 percent of engineering majors versus 79 percent of education majors, according to a study by the American Association of University Women.
Female doctors are more likely to be pediatricians than higher-paid cardiologists. They are more likely to work part time. And even those working full time put in 7 percent fewer hours a week than men. They are also much more likely to take extended leaves, most often to give birth and start a family.
outright sex discrimination has declined sharply, most economists agree. Today, women’s career choices — constrained by the burdens of motherhood and family — account for most of the pay gap between women and men.
[a] study by the American Association of University Women found that the pay gap straight out of college — before the demands of family become an issue — was only 5 percent after accounting for other differences between the sexes.
It’s telling to look at the pay gap among the nation’s highest earners — where women’s deficit is largest. At the 10th percentile of earners, women make about 90 cents for every dollar earned by men. By contrast, at the 90th percentile, near the top of the distribution, women only make about 77 cents for every $1 men earn.
Now make no mistake, we know that pay gaps exist. For example:
The economists Claudia Goldin and Lawrence F. Katz of Harvard University, and Marianne Bertrand of the University of Chicago, tracked the career paths of nearly 3,000 M.B.A.’s who graduated from the University of Chicago over 15 years, as they began their careers in business and finance. The women started off making 88 percent as much as men, on average. But 10 to 15 years later, they were making only 55 cents for every dollar of men’s pay.
After accounting for a number of differences, from grades to course choices, the economists concluded that women’s pay deficit was almost entirely because they interrupted their careers more often and tended to work fewer hours. The rest was mostly explained by career choices: for instance, more women worked at nonprofits, which pay less.
The PFA stands a slim chance that the pay of women in equal jobs at the start of their careers will be paid that extra 5% to 10% that men seem to get—remember the Times did not say why accounted for the 88% rate of pay women made at the start of their careers. Did Sally and Sammy have the same job at the same firm? Doubtful. Still that is something to figure out! But trying to legislate it is likely to cause damage as the Times points out:
Demanding that employers explain exactly why a particular man earned more than a particular woman would create a jolt in the labor market — where employers like to pay both women and men as little as possible, according to the laws of supply and demand. What’s more, it’s probably impossible to do, considering the myriad differences between two workers. “What are we going to check?” asks Ms. Goldin. “It’s not checkable.” The result, she says, could backfire, leading to lower employment for women over all.
That wouldn’t help women at all.
Yes the author of the Times story is the socialist Eduardo Porter who never misses a chance to say that women who make nice money should be taxed to the point that their gains are taken back from them and given to the poor unemployed mommies on food stamps. Snore. But what it right here is that our problem with the pay gap is not that women are paid less than men; it is that they are promoted less than men.
That is what accounts for pay gaps. And the inability of our society to deal with women who want and crave high pay and the personality ticks that come with that are a big problem. Big. But the PFA does not a damn thing to solve that. Just ask Obo Obama who pays his men so much more on his staff because he hires them to fill the most senior positions.
But here is the irony: the NYTimes knows that the PFA is bunk but they use it shamlessly to gin up hate by women for the GOP. Take for example this NYTimes story about the House rejecting a bill to ban sex-selective abortions.
Abortion-rights advocates…slammed Representative Trent Franks, Republican of Arizona, for pushing forward with his bill [banning sex-selection abortions], known as the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act. “Many of the bill’s supporters have rejected equal pay for women and have tried to slash funding for programs that serve women and children,” said Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America.
Painting GOPers (who know the PFA is likely to do nothing for women’s pay and may even chill women hires by small biz or male dominated biz because who wants Uncle Sam going through you employee files to see what Sally’s job duties are compared to Jon’s who will just be promoted to justify his pay hike and thus get around the equal part when his title is no longer equal)....painting this as anti-woman is sad. Dems think that women are so so gullible. But we are not. We want to advance in our careers and not be penalized in promotions and prestige by being picked over for the best job because we might take maternity leave. But that said….when we do take five years off we don’t expect to be paid for that time equally. Women want equal pay for equal work.