A Liberal politician went on twitter recently pointing out that employers in the forestry industry were not paying certain workers equal money for equal work. The politician argued that there was discrimination at logging sites where workers raised in fishing communities were only paid 74 percent of what local forestry workers in the interior of British Columbia made.
To deaf ears, logging companies clarified that workers raised in fisheries communities lacked the experience and work consistency of other loggers. For example, occasionally the coastal workers went back to their home to assist their families during the peak fishing season. The logging companies explained that they did indeed pay equal wages for work. There were workers from fishing communities who were paid equally in the logging industry for the same work, but these workers kept up with their skills without any employment interruptions and they devoted the same amount of long hours on the job.
This is not a true story; no Liberal tweeted about under-paid loggers. But the fictional account might help one understand the dishonesty of feminist arguments that claim women are not paid the same as men for work of equal value.
Feminists say that women, compared to men, are underpaid for equal work. If this is true, would not most employers hire women only to do the equal work and thus save about 26 percent in labor costs? Why would any business hire men if they could save a ton of money by employing women to do the same work?
Of course, women as a group earn lower incomes. No one disputes that fact. The problem is that feminists, keeping to the victimhood narrative, will not compare apples with apples.
When one examines male-female income differences it is essential to consider a number of variables and avoid gross comparisons of men and women in groups. For example, group numbers are bogus if you do not explain that many women choosing motherhood are more apt to lose specific working experience. Having children might also affect a woman’s seniority status or her employment flexibility.
Mothers with domestic responsibilities can fall behind their male co-workers who maintain continuous full-time employment. Interruptions in the labor force can be costly particularly in occupations where knowledge proceeds quickly (ie. computer technology).
Another variable is the premium paid hazardous work. One study showed that men represented about 54 percent of the labor force, but they accounted for 92 percent of job-related deaths. There is a reason why male loggers in the forestry industry, handling high-powered saws and machines, earn a higher salary than many women working other jobs in the same region.
There are women willing to work 60 to 70s hours a week to meet the expectations of high-pressure occupations such as what is demanded at a major law firm. But men tend to go for these jobs more than women. Evidence shows that men are more likely than women to choose jobs requiring long, irregular and unpredictable hours.
In an article entitled “A Guide to Womenomics,” the Economist stated: “The main reason why women still get paid less on average than men is not that they are paid less for the same jobs but that they tend not to climb so far up the career ladder, or they choose lower-paid occupations….”
A study in the New England Journal of Medicine makes another important point: “In 1990, young male physicians earned 41 percent more per year than young female physicians…. However, after adjusting for differences in specialty, practice settings, and other characteristics, no earnings difference was evident.” It helped that the male doctors worked over 500 hours a year more than the women doctors.
Education is often a major component in having economic security with higher salaries. But women who are more than capable of graduate studies in physics or mathematics may be less inclined to study for numerous years in such fields. Taking a stark example, there are clear salary differences between women who major in English or women’s studies and men who major in chemical engineering.
For those who care to examine the mountain of data available, there are studies that show unmarried women, who had worked continuously, earning as much or more than men of the same description. When you breakdown the data and compare men and women of comparable ages, education, and employment history, you will find that male and female earning are equal or almost equal.
When employment discrimination based on sex does happens, it is usually very slight (after variables are accounted for). The next time you hear someone say that women only earn 74 percent (or some other similar number) of what men earn, consider that the speaker is being disingenuous.
Sorry, the victimization narrative behind an alleged income sex-gap number as presented by feminists is entirely mythical.
PS:
If you want a taste of feminist economic thinking, check out the recent issue of Maclean’s magazine that laments the “unfairness” of the male-female wage gap (in his Financial Post article, economist William Watson educates Maclean’s with sensible economics- see http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/william-watson-how-macleans-clever-wage-gap-cover-accidentally-debunked-the-wage-gap).
Sources:
Catherine McIntyre, “Why Do Men Make More Money Than Women?,” Maclean’s (March 2018)
Thomas Sowell, Economic Facts and Fallacies (2011)
William Watson, “How Maclean’s clever ‘wage gap’ cover accidentally debunked the wage gap,” Financial Post (February 13, 2018)
The Bayview Review 