By

Bryce Covert /

The Nation/ August 15, 2012, 4:07 PM

Yes, Virginia, there is a gender wage gap

A woman shouts into a bullhorn as protesters rally for International Worker's Day outside the Alameda County courthouse May 1, 2012, in Oakland, Calif.

A woman shouts into a bullhorn as protesters rally for International Worker's Day outside the Alameda County courthouse May 1, 2012, in Oakland, Calif. / Getty Images

(The Nation) I would love to agree with Ramesh Ponnuru's latest Bloomberg column, in which he argues that the gender wage gap -- in which women on average still make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes -- is not caused by discrimination. Ponnuru argues that, rather, it's caused by different choices women make in their career paths and family formations. Wouldn't it be great if the gap didn't exist because women are held back and given less, but because they simply want different things? And it's certainly true that the fact that women are congregated in a different set of jobs and often have to leave the workforce when they have children plays a role. But even this can't explain away the gap.

Ponnuru cites research by conservative economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth and a consulting company showing that the gap all but disappears when factors such as women working fewer hours, going part-time or taking breaks from their careers are taken into account. But the Government Accountability Office has already examined this question (PDF). The GAO tried to figure out just how much of the gap could be explained by these sorts of factors. To do so, it first performed a quantitative analysis using data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, a nationally representative longitudinal data set. It also supplemented that work by interviewing experts, reviewing the literature and contacting employers.

What did the study find? It's true that a variety of factors come into play -- among them work patterns, job tenure, industry, occupation, race and marital status. But when it stripped all of these out, it still found that women earned about 80 percent of what men did. "Even after accounting for key factors that affect earnings," the authors report, "our model could not explain all of the difference in earnings between men and women." While it couldn't definitively say what caused that 20 percent gap, plain old discrimination was one of the few possibilities it highlighted.

The idea that women are paid less because they choose certain industries or occupations also doesn't get us very far. Among the Bureau of Labor Statistics's list (PDF) of nearly 600 occupations, women make less than men in all but seven of them. And even in those where women make more, the difference is often as slight as a couple of dollars a week. They even make less in each industry: among the BLS's thirteen industry categories, women make less than men in every single one. What this means is that even in "women's fields," men are going to rake in more. In fact, men have been entering traditionally female dominated sectors during the recovery period, and as the New York Times noted, they're meeting with great success -- "men earn more than women even in female-dominated jobs," it noted. Women can enter engineering all they want, but their pay still won't catch up to men's.

What of the idea that women are paid less because they don't ask for more money? Ponnuru argues that "women are less likely than men to drive hard bargains in salary negotiations," which might explain some of the gap. But that idea is based more on stereotypes of women shying away from ambition than reality. Research firm Catalyst found that women do in fact ask for more money -- they just aren't rewarded for it. It looked at the career paths of thousands of MBA graduates, men and women, who were similarly ambitious about their career paths. It found that among those who moved on from their first job, "there was no significant difference in the proportion of women and men who asked for increased compensation or a higher position." But there was a big difference in how much they ended up making -- the women had slower compensation growth, and the gap got wider and wider as their careers progressed.

Another recent study focused on the manager side of the equation: are they rewarding men and women who seek raises equally? Turns out the answer is no. When managers were told they had a limited pot of money to give out in raises to employees with the same skill and experience levels, managers gave men raises that were two and a half times larger than women's when they knew they'd have to negotiate. In short: women ask, but they don't receive.

Ponnuru does acknowledge that women's personal choices may be constrained by social expectations and structures. Indeed, when talking about the fact that many women drop out of the workforce to care for children or end up cutting back their hours, we're not just talking about fully equal options. Many women don't have a lot of other financial options -- single mothers whose childcare costs outpace their wages, parents who can't afford the incredible cost of childcare (PDF), the fact that we are one of the three nations of 178 that doesn't guarantee paid maternity leave (not to mention paternity leave). That's why his claim that "there's no reason to think that women will ever, on average, have the same preferences as men about combining employment and parenthood" is doubtful. We haven't given them the chance.

Bryce Covert is the editor of the Roosevelt Institute's New Deal 2.0 blog. She lives and works in New York. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

1/2

The Nation
19 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Jaylah54200 says:
It is interesting, albeit sad, to see the comments of the men here attempting to justify gender discrimination.

It reminds me so much of all the excuses used to try to justify racial discrimination. Everybody "knew" that Negros were of inferior intelligence, were lazy and didn't work as hard, etc., etc., etc.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
rennin1 says:
If women really earn 77 cents to the dollar for the same work as men, then how can a business compete by hiring men at any level? Wouldn't all businesses hire only women if everything else was the same, and women really do work for less money?
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
cntrygirl3 says:
I would like to trutwin and the world war II workers and what was done to them. Many of these women had true freedom and real lives for the first time ever. And what happened after the war, they lost their jobs and their lives and many of them their sanity. Do you ever wonder about rampant female alcoholism in the 50's or the use of librium. To me this is where the seeds of feminism were sown, mothers raising daughters to never ever let this happen again.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
cntrygirl3 says:
I am a retired engineer and the only place I did not face wage discrimination was the years I worked in civil service. That is because wage increases as long as you do a good job are the same for everyone. Now there were other discrimination on getting to a position. This is because of civil service rules that give managers very little leeway once a promotion is made. Private industry is completely different. My first job out of college I was paid $50 a week less than the males that were hired. I knew a lady maybe 15 years older than me that had spent 7 years as a junior engineer (lowest rank) she had trained countless men to watch them promoted over her. That was changing because of your so called "leftist feminists". But it still hasn't completely changed. If you look at the statistics no matter what the profession men make more than women, whether it is a store clerk or an engineer. Even as far as we've come, we have only managed to hack a nickle an hour off that gap since the 70's. And even to hold that a woman in the "male" professions still has to work twice as hard.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
cntrygirl3 says:
I am a retired engineer and the only place I did not face wage discrimination was the years I worked in civil service. That is because wage increases as long as you do a good job are the same for everyone. Now there were other discrimination on getting to a position. This is because of civil service rules that give managers very little leeway once a promotion is made. Private industry is completely different. My first job out of college I was paid $50 a week less than the males that were hired. I knew a lady maybe 15 years older than me that had spent 7 years as a junior engineer (lowest rank) she had trained countless men to watch them promoted over her. That was changing because of your so called "leftist feminists". But it still hasn't completely changed. If you look at the statistics no matter what the profession men make more than women, whether it is a store clerk or an engineer. Even as far as we've come, we have only managed to hack a nickle an hour off that gap since the 70's. And even to hold that a woman in the "male" professions still has to work twice as hard.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Slim2471 says:
It can't possibly be that there are actual differences in the genders, right? Nooooo, that is sexist to even suggest. But then look at TimeToEvolve's statement above. He/she claims that women should be paid more for various reasons. If the world disagrees, is it therefore appropriate for men to be paid more?
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
TimeToEvolve says:
The fact is that women should be paid MORE than men, not less. They are far smarter, more emotionally stable (less macho testosterone) and by nature more caring and nurturing. There would not be wars for oil going on all over the world. Family, public education and social services would come first, not corporate profits and imperial military "defense".
reply
Slim2471 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
And when will women start picking up the check at dinner?
justinsmithit replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Bull.
See all 4 Replies
linkicon reporticon emailicon
CaptainSmollett says:
It is soooo easy to fudge these statistics. Drawing conclusiions from simple gender wage comparisons is totally bogus. The numbers must be normalized for a wide array of demographic differences to draw any valid conclusion. For example, a filing clerk is inherently going to be paid less than an engineer. Does that mean there is wage descrimination? No.
reply
TimeToEvolve replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Except that the facts speak for themselves. You must be a firm father figure conservative. Women are weaker so they are by definition evil and must be disciplined. By force of necessary. And since I am the father (male) and stronger and thus good, I am always right.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
jColes says:
...and remember, that GAO study the author touts was limited by the parameters defined by those who requested it...GAO studies are never full spectrum analyses.
While there might-possibly-could-potentially be-sorta-kinda be pay for work discrimination at some companies, those employers who take that route do so at their own peril...Law being what it is just the allegation of gender-based pay discrimination could -- and often does -- result in huge litigation expenses for the accused employer that the employer cannot recoup even when the company wins the case.

The real answer lies dead-center in the facts the feminist Left dismisses: women who choose career over the 'I can have it all' track earn as much or more as their male counterparts provided they stay current with the state-of-the-art of their occupation; get the appropriate training - which generally comes from out-of-pocket, after-hours attendance at graduate and professional schools; show absolute dedication to the company and its goals (become fully acculturated in the company's culture); and produce results on the job.
Remember: a salary or wage is a productivity investment by the employer, not an entitlement.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
louiville2_2 says:
Gee Bryce Covert it must suck to be you!!!! Another male bashing BS story of selective study cherry picking.
reply
See all 19 Comments