Thursday, February 23, 2006

This Just in....75% of Americans Make up Three Quarters of the Population

Why undercut a legitimate point by relying on meaning less statistics?

One statistic you hear over and over is that women make only 75 cents for every dollar a man earns. This ratio gives the false impression woman working in the same position as a man makes 25% less.

All the wage-gap ratio reflects is a comparison of the median earnings of all working women and men. It doesn't compare those with equal work, equal training, equal education or equal tenure.

So, the while the wage gap is a measure of inequality, it does not measure discrimination per se. It does not provide an understanding of reasons for disparity which may include factors such as that more women choose lower-paying professions than men; they move in and out of the workforce more frequently; and they work fewer paid hours on average.

It is estimated that about a quarter of the wage gap, or 6-7% results from actual discrimination. This is an important issue on its own, and doesn't need to be supported by contorted math.

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Which doesn't mean, of course, that women with the same training, education, and experience actually do make the same as men, either. All animals don't have four legs, but some of them do. Women often receive the short end of the pay stick; the problem in uncovering the truth is that what employees make is generally private. To compare, you have to have insiders giving you accurate information about their pay, education and experience so that you can actually compare like employees, and that means that employers could easily identify who ratted them out. Women who make their salaries public in an effort to embarrass their employers into pay parity or even just to find out if there is disparity in pay risk getting hammered by their employers.

While we're on statistics, I want to mention the amazing statistic Tom read in a New York Times book review. (If I were writing my own blog instead of a merely posting a random comment on Howard's blog, I'd actually work to confirm the source of this statistic, but that seems like ... well, work). Anyhoo, I digress. Stop yourself from scanning ahead for a second and answer this question:

What percentage of African
American children under the age
of 5 live with both parents?

Whatever you guessed, I bet you'll be as surprised as I was to learn that the answer is a paltry eight percent. I've experienced single parenthood for a few weeks at a time, and if you've never done it, I can assure you it is NO picnic. I need another parent around, and I know that my kids do, too. Otherwise, someone's going to lose an eye.

George F. Will once wrote that there are three keys to avoiding poverty: (1) finish high school, (2) don't have kids while you are a teenager, and (3) don't have children until you get married. Hmmmm. Maybe he really does know more than the entirety of the unabridged OED.

Maybe we need to go back to the days where women were stigmatized for having kids out of wedlock, or at a minimum, stress the financial importance of children having two parents. I do not say this because these parents have loose morals, but because they aren't putting their child's welfare first. Women believe they can do it alone and that they don't need a man's help. Men think - what? - that they're not needed? (I'm hopelessly ignorant about what they think; maybe they aren't thinking at all.) We need to change the hearts and minds of potential parents, folks.

Despite Angelina Jolie's very public show of having a foreign kid in each arm (just like Paris Hilton, who is always being photographed carrying her ugly chihuahua), kids are not accessories. They deserve better, and two parents would be a good start.

Your thoughts, folks? Howard, I'd like to see you post a comment in response. You can't just spew your thoughts, you have to read others and comment on those, too.

11:21 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home