A closer look at 'Paycheck Fairness'
Here's a headline from last week: “Senate Republicans vote to block Paycheck Fairness Act.” The quick and incorrect assumption is that Republicans are opposed to women getting equal pay for equal work.
That's exactly the type of interpretation sought by the Obama administration and congressional Democrats, increasingly fearful of losing their slim majority in the Senate in November.
From The Washington Post, here's the midterm election forecast two months ago by associate professor of political science John Sides at George Washington University, a specialist in public opinion and American elections: “Given that President Obama is more unpopular than popular,” and given that “the relationship between presidential approval and Senate elections is stronger” today than previously, and “based on Senate elections from 1980 to 2012,” the Republicans “now have a 64 percent chance of taking the Senate.”
Proclaimed Obama at the White House before the aforementioned Senate vote on Paycheck Fairness, “Today, the average full-time working woman earns just 77 cents for every dollar a man earns — for African Americans, Latinas, it's even less.”
Given the prospect of losing the Senate, Obama kept things uncomplicated and simply told the nation that Republicans are “gumming up the works” and preventing equal pay for equal work.
Missing from this White House pep rally was any hint that the so-called “77 cents” scenario is built entirely on a comparison of apples to oranges.
In “The ‘77 Cents on the Dollar' Myth About Women's Pay” (The Wall Street Journal, April 8, 2014), Mark J. Perry, professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan, and Andrew G. Biggs, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, concisely summarized the flaws in the alleged 23 percent wage gap for equal work.
“Men were almost twice as likely as women to work more than 40 hours a week, and women almost twice as likely to work only 35 to 39 hours per week,” report Perry and Biggs, citing the Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Once that is taken into consideration, the pay gap begins to shrink. Women who worked a 40 hour week earned 88 percent of male earnings.”
Women also more often “choose fields of study, such as sociology, liberal arts or psychology, that pay less” while men are “more likely to major in finance, accounting or engineering.” Again, it's apples and oranges.
Similarly, dangerous jobs often pay more in order to compensate for risks and attract workers. “Nearly all the most dangerous occupations, such as loggers or iron workers, are majority male and 92 percent of work-related deaths in 2012 were to men,” report Perry and Biggs.
Marriage and children also affect pay differences. Child care that takes women out of the labor force translates into women having less work experience than similarly-aged males. According to Perry and Biggs, “The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that single women who have never married earned 96 percent of men's earnings in 2012.”
Bottom line, polarizing the nation by race or gender might help win votes, but it's not the path to producing more jobs or more prosperity.
Ralph R. Reiland is an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University and a local restaurateur (email@example.com).
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Starkey: Rutherford hits jackpot with Kessel
- Penguins get their man in making trade with Toronto for Kessel
- H-D Advanced Manufacturing in Franklin Park buys Virginia-based aerospace components maker Firstmark
- Rossi: Wild Wednesday proves Steelers rule
- Higher school taxes prevail in Western Pennsylvania, Trib finds
- New Kensington residents rally in support of 82-year-old robbery victim
- Penguins notebook: Rutherford proves savvy in deal
- Instances of hacking may be up, but indictments against Chinese military impactful, experts say
- Group takes veterans, seniors in WWII-era planes at Unity airport
- McKeesport duo a big part of PSGA basketball recruiting class
- Saxonburg residents surprised by zoning proposal