The Wage Gap Isn’t Real & Here’s Why

Last fiscal quarter, men out-earned women each week by about two hundred dollars. Should this not be cause for concern?

Now, I did say “earned” as there is an important distinction to be made between this and “wages” when discussing the supposed gender pay gap.

For those who may not be up on the resurfaced controversy, recent promulgations by a new wave of feminists (and Obama) assert that American women are paid substantially less than men for the same exact work. On the surface, findings from surveys that supposedly control for occupation might disgust people. However, digging a bit deeper one may find that these categorizations tend to be too broad and can encompass individual jobs wherein there are relatively significant differences in salaries.

Among the primary issues encountered when calculating an exact pay ratio is the near infinitude of factors to be considered simultaneously. Overwhelming numbers of multivariate analyses demonstrate that not only are a vast majority explained by choices, but also variables that are quite difficult to measure such as schedule flexibility that cause employees to be paid differently despite equivalencies in their qualifications. These, in turn, render the notion that the existence of any “gender pay gap” is entirely the result of sexist discrimination utterly false and cause the wage gap to narrow nearly to zero.

One of the most common arguments against this asinine wage gap claim is that men work longer hours and take less time off. This is objectively true: There was recently reported a nearly five-hour workweek disparity among the sexes working full-time last year, and women have consistently caused a greater percentage of work hours to be lost to sick days compared to men.

To be fair, domestic responsibilities do spread women all over the world rather thin. In fact, the average woman in America already exceeds the number of hours whereat it is recommended she cap her workweek to maintain her well-being. I support it as I consider raising a family to be one of the most admirable jobs in the world; I don’t see anything wrong with slowing one’s rise up the corporate ladder by electing to spend more time with children.

Also important to acknowledge are natural differences between men and women. For example, man’s lack of agreeableness tends to make him a better salary negotiator. Differences in interests (not aptitude) also incline women to choose often lower-paying professions, all of which contribute to an earnings gap.

Indeed, the “gender-equality paradox” phenomenon that demonstrates a direct correlation between nations’ egalitarianism and the widening of their respective gender math and science gaps actually contradicts social role theory, and ultimately refutes the idea that society discourages women from pursuing those paths. Call me partial, but I sure haven’t heard of an academic institution without any sort of “Women in STEM” initiative.

To those still not yet convinced, I ask this: If salaries alone can account for more than half of a business’ operating budget, then why don’t companies only hire women whom they can get away with paying less than men for the same work?

…

So that’s actually illegal; the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (the better EPA) has prohibited wage discrimination on account of sex for about as long as our parents have been alive.

Look, folks: What I urge you all to take away from this is that the existence of statistical disparities among demographics of people does not necessarily indicate evidence of systematic discrimination. Might there be sexism? I concede to it being entirely possible, and reprobate every individual instance thereof on a case-by-case basis; I simultaneously believe it is equally the responsibility of the employee themself to confront each one and ensure that a company upholds the laws that have already been set into law for decades.

The false ratio narratives are a substantial ways off from to what the wage gap diminishes the more factors that are considered simultaneously; this generates an unnecessary sense of alarmism when how we prioritize the handling of injustices is based entirely upon what the facts are. There are still plenty of other lies being told by those with a virtue-signaling agenda (or perhaps who just can’t identify voluntary response bias), but I’ll flex my statistics degree some more another time.

Seventy-seven cents my butt.