The universal acceptance on the Left of the myth that “Women earn only 73 cents for every dollar earned by men in this country,” is both astonishing and irritating.
Where is this phenomenon manifested?
If, for example, an employer wishes to hire a recent graduate Electrical Engineer, is that employer going to offer a female graduate only 73% of what it would offer a male grad with the same credentials? Where is that employer, exactly?
It doesn’t exist. Show me. It is a mythical employer.
Why on earth would the employer hire ANY males if it could get the same credentials and performance out of a female for a lot less money? It would be counterproductive and insane.
What about a nurse? Is there any hospital, doctor’s office, or nursing home that hires male nurses at compensation rates that are 37% higher ($25/hr vs $18.25)? Where are they?
They don’t exist.
Social workers? Same thing. Those employers (all government entities) DO NOT EXIST. Teachers and other bureaucrats? Same thing.
Waiters & waitresses? Barista’s vs. Baristo’s? No difference. Accountants, lawyers, architects ? Do you really think those employers could get away with paying males and females with the same credentials dramatically different wages? Baloney.
Construction laborers ? Male vs. Female ? No difference.
But the “fact” does have a statistical basis. If you take all the employed males in the country, calculate their average compensation, then take all the employed females in the country and calculate their average compensation, there will be a dramatic difference in the two averages.
And a small fraction of that difference is due to HISTORICAL discrimination, which has no relevance to any contemporary public policy.
A generation ago, for very valid reasons, many employers would not consider females for responsible positions, or even for training programs that led to responsible positions, because it was presumed that any female would have her career significantly interrupted and impeded by the obligations of child bearing and child rearing. She would take months off to have children during her most important development years; she would refuse to travel overnight and she would take time off regularly to address parenting exigencies and obligations; significant overtime or weekend work were simply not going to happen. Her priority would always be in the home and not the Company.
And for that reason - understandable discrimination that occurred 20 years ago and beyond - the number of women at the top of the corporate ladder is less than it would have been otherwise, so you simply do not see as many women in the Executive Suite as you see men.
But the solution is not to promote undeserving women just to adjust the numbers (although many companies are doing just that), it is to allow time for the women whose career has not been impeded to reach the Executive Suite on MERIT. And even when that happens, women will not be 50%, because the fact is that women DO have domestic responsibilities that are inconsistent with the level of dedication that is required to reach the top in the corporate world. Why should an employer accept less of a commitment from a female executive than it demands of a man?
The second reason for the average pay discrepancy is the nature of careers to which the genders gravitate. More women tend BY CHOICE to be social workers, teacher accountants, waitresses, administrative assistants, store clerks, and so on. Within the professions, women doctors tend to specialize in areas that do not generate top compensation (dermatology, gynecology), women lawyers tend to be administrative types rather than litigators. Women whose education is in the hard sciences tend to work in areas that are not technically demanding (safety, environmental, industrial engineering, etc), or in academe.
The political whores who propagate the 73% myth know that for the gullible women who listen to them, it will never go away. And yet it has NOTHING TO DO WITH workplace discrimination, which hasn’t existed in any significant way for decades. Again, if an employer could get female production for 73% of the cost of male production, no employer would ever hire a man.
And one final point. That old discrimination that employers used to have is still warranted in most cases, but we are required by law to ignore it. Those who work in the corporate world know that many, many professional women are unwilling to travel overnight, or work evenings or weekends because of their obligations at home. You are not allowed to talk about it - or point out that their male counterparts are doing all of that - because it may seem unkind. They call in "sick" when either their kids or their mother, or their babysitter is sick, and the employer is never allowed to charge this time to PTO (vacation), even though everyone knows it is NOT the employee who is sick, but someone else.
Steam comes out my hears when I hear politicians spouting nonsense about this mythical "pay gap," and with HRC having nothing but a vagina to qualify her for the White House, it will be a constant drumbeat for the next 18 months.
Where is this phenomenon manifested?
If, for example, an employer wishes to hire a recent graduate Electrical Engineer, is that employer going to offer a female graduate only 73% of what it would offer a male grad with the same credentials? Where is that employer, exactly?
It doesn’t exist. Show me. It is a mythical employer.
Why on earth would the employer hire ANY males if it could get the same credentials and performance out of a female for a lot less money? It would be counterproductive and insane.
What about a nurse? Is there any hospital, doctor’s office, or nursing home that hires male nurses at compensation rates that are 37% higher ($25/hr vs $18.25)? Where are they?
They don’t exist.
Social workers? Same thing. Those employers (all government entities) DO NOT EXIST. Teachers and other bureaucrats? Same thing.
Waiters & waitresses? Barista’s vs. Baristo’s? No difference. Accountants, lawyers, architects ? Do you really think those employers could get away with paying males and females with the same credentials dramatically different wages? Baloney.
Construction laborers ? Male vs. Female ? No difference.
But the “fact” does have a statistical basis. If you take all the employed males in the country, calculate their average compensation, then take all the employed females in the country and calculate their average compensation, there will be a dramatic difference in the two averages.
And a small fraction of that difference is due to HISTORICAL discrimination, which has no relevance to any contemporary public policy.
A generation ago, for very valid reasons, many employers would not consider females for responsible positions, or even for training programs that led to responsible positions, because it was presumed that any female would have her career significantly interrupted and impeded by the obligations of child bearing and child rearing. She would take months off to have children during her most important development years; she would refuse to travel overnight and she would take time off regularly to address parenting exigencies and obligations; significant overtime or weekend work were simply not going to happen. Her priority would always be in the home and not the Company.
And for that reason - understandable discrimination that occurred 20 years ago and beyond - the number of women at the top of the corporate ladder is less than it would have been otherwise, so you simply do not see as many women in the Executive Suite as you see men.
But the solution is not to promote undeserving women just to adjust the numbers (although many companies are doing just that), it is to allow time for the women whose career has not been impeded to reach the Executive Suite on MERIT. And even when that happens, women will not be 50%, because the fact is that women DO have domestic responsibilities that are inconsistent with the level of dedication that is required to reach the top in the corporate world. Why should an employer accept less of a commitment from a female executive than it demands of a man?
The second reason for the average pay discrepancy is the nature of careers to which the genders gravitate. More women tend BY CHOICE to be social workers, teacher accountants, waitresses, administrative assistants, store clerks, and so on. Within the professions, women doctors tend to specialize in areas that do not generate top compensation (dermatology, gynecology), women lawyers tend to be administrative types rather than litigators. Women whose education is in the hard sciences tend to work in areas that are not technically demanding (safety, environmental, industrial engineering, etc), or in academe.
The political whores who propagate the 73% myth know that for the gullible women who listen to them, it will never go away. And yet it has NOTHING TO DO WITH workplace discrimination, which hasn’t existed in any significant way for decades. Again, if an employer could get female production for 73% of the cost of male production, no employer would ever hire a man.
And one final point. That old discrimination that employers used to have is still warranted in most cases, but we are required by law to ignore it. Those who work in the corporate world know that many, many professional women are unwilling to travel overnight, or work evenings or weekends because of their obligations at home. You are not allowed to talk about it - or point out that their male counterparts are doing all of that - because it may seem unkind. They call in "sick" when either their kids or their mother, or their babysitter is sick, and the employer is never allowed to charge this time to PTO (vacation), even though everyone knows it is NOT the employee who is sick, but someone else.
Steam comes out my hears when I hear politicians spouting nonsense about this mythical "pay gap," and with HRC having nothing but a vagina to qualify her for the White House, it will be a constant drumbeat for the next 18 months.
