Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Wage gap trope, sigh...

You can search the Lansing State Journal's web site today for the phrase "gender wage gap," but you will get no results. This, despite the fact of the headline on page 3A: "Gender wage gap narrowing," a story by Dennis Cauchon of USA today, where it was titled "Gender pay gap is smallest on record."

Perhaps excluding this from local search is because the story appeared yesterday at USA Today, and the LSJ is embarrassed to be recycling it a day later. I can't think of another reason, because I seriously doubt the LSJ is at all discomfited by the continuing distortion of this supposed wage gap. It is not as if I have not pointed it out to them.

NOV-16-04
Letter to LSJ:

Regarding Susan Stock's article of November 16th, "Wage inequities persist for Michigan women"; this is the essentially the same story you published on April 20th.

The 20 year old anecdote about wage discrimination as the lead seems about the only change, but you definitely get points for consistency.

The same basic facts are missing that were missing in April. For example, this 'study' utterly ignores such useful variables as industry, occupation, continuous years in the workforce, level of education, field of study, experience, and number of hours worked.

The authors of the study are another far-left advocacy group, whose president, Heidi Hartmann, has said: "The marriage of Marxism and feminism has been like the marriage of husband and wife depicted in English common law: Marxism and feminism are one, and that one is Marxism."

A little research and skepticism on behalf of your readers would be appreciated.
They also published a 600 word OpEd I wrote on the same subject.

If you include the factors mentioned in the 3rd paragraph of the letter above, the "wage gap" disappeared long before 2004, if it ever existed. 

For example, men average 5.6 more hours work per week than women, or about 7 weeks a year. In 2008 there were 1,277 male work-related deaths for every 100 female work-related deaths. Maybe some danger pay is due.

Also, let us look at the educational preferences of the females (who outnumber men) in PhD programs, and then at why some of those PhD preferences are what they are. 


Earnings-wise these graphs speak for themselves (thanks to Carpe Diem).




To those who claim the difference in that last graph is due to an oppressive patriarchy, I refer you here. Keep reading after you get there.  

This SAT score difference says nothing about individual women, whose math skills may be every bit as good as any man's.  What it does reflect is that despite the fact that males disproportionately occupy the very lowest areas of SAT scores, they also occupy the vast majority of the very uppermost.


There is no wage gap.

No comments: