The Gender Pay Gap Closes for the Third Year in a Row

In this election year, expect Democrats -- especially Hillary Clinton -- to make "equal pay for equal work" a campaign issue in order to garner women's votes.  In doing so, also expect them to trot out the old statistic that women only make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes.  But, that 77 cent claim hasn't existed since before 2002 when women, for the first time, made 78 cents on the dollar.  An example of this is Hillary tweet made in 2014:

That is totally false; and of course, nearly 10,000 followers liked it ("Likes") and apparently believe it to be the truth.  At least Obama has given up on the 77 cent claim.  Now, he's using 78 cents.

Here's the truth.

In November of 2015, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) published its latest report on women's pay titled "Highlights of Women's Earnings for 2014" and women reached a new milestone; making 83 cents for every dollar a man made.  This is up from 82 cents in 2013 and 81 cents in 2012.  So, neither Hillary nor Obama have an excuse for not knowing the true number.  Also understand that 83 cents is a 34% improvement in pay disparity in the last 35 years when, in 1979, women made just 62 cents on the dollar.  That's almost a one percent improvement per year.

Additionally, in Table 1 of that report, women -- before the age of 35 -- made between 89.9% and 92.3% of what men made.  The reason that is significant is the fact that, prior to that age, many women leave the workforce to raise a family.  Upon return, they have lost all the pay raises and seniority that they may have enjoyed while they where gone; and, basically, they wind up starting all over again in their chosen career fields with lower pay.

The simple truth is that Democrats prefer to lie about the size of the pay disparity between the sexes in order to enhance the victimization of women in the workforce.  It's all about politics and votes, and not the truth.  Also, the closing of the gender gap was a result of economic forces and not because of anything that the federal government did.  If it had, you know Barack Obama would be front and center taking credit for it.


References:

Highlights of Women's Earnings for 2014: http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/highlights-of-womens-earnings-in-2014.pdf

Hillary's Tweet on Women's Pay: https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/453688842621431808?lang=en

The ‘Equal Pay Day’ factoid that women make 78 cents for every dollar earned by men: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/04/02/the-equal-pay-day-factoid-that-women-make-78-cents-for-every-dollar-earned-by-men/

President Obama gives up 77 cent wage gap statistic: https://www.whitehouse.gov/equal-pay/career 

Highlights of Women's Earnings for 2013: http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/highlights-of-womens-earnings-in-2013.pdf

Highlights of Women's Earnings for 2012: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2012.pdf

Highlights of Women's Earnings for 2002: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2002.pdf

pb

The Misconceptions Leading Up To National Equal Pay Day

With a standing "O" at the Oscars, award winner Patricia Arquette struck a chord with the overwhelmingly liberal Hollywood crowd when she said:

"To every woman who gave birth to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation, we have fought for everybody else's equal rights. It's our time to have wage equality once and for all, and equal rights for women in the United States of America."

Then, too, as noted in a commentary written for Reuters news by two of its journalists, Amanda Becker and Jonathan Allen, Hillary Clinton has been pushing this issue whenever she has spoken to women's groups.   But, these two journalists didn't just stop at talking about Hillary, they went on to reference the results of an online Reuters/Ipsos poll that supports Hillary's claims and then some:

"Fifty-one percent of respondents said the U.S. government should be doing more to encourage equal pay, the online poll of 2,348 adults from Feb. 27 to March 3 showed...Broken down by political party, 67 percent of Democrats and 36 percent of Republicans said the federal government should be playing a more active role, according to the poll."

Of course, they needed to point out that only 36% of Republicans supported government intervention to do more to equalize pay among the genders.  This, then, is a subtle reminder of the Democrat's theme that Republicans are conducting a war on women.  Obviously, implying that they would prefer women to be paid less.

The two writers went on to note that women only make 77 cents on the dollar when compared to men by saying: "The 77-cent figure comes from recent U.S. Census Bureau reports..."  Well, that is a complete lie.  The latest report (see link below) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, resulting from Census Bureau surveys, says this:

"On average in 2013, women made 82 percent of the median weekly earnings of male full-time wage and salary workers ($860). In 1979, the first year for which comparable earnings data are available, women earned 62 percent of what men earned."

So, here you have two journalists for a mainstreams news outlet, Reuters, lying.  The current pay disparity is 82 cents; not 77.  Also, the writers and their fellow Democrats fail to note that great strides have been made since 1979 when women only made "62% of what men earned." That's a 32% improvement in pay inequality in 34 years; or, about a 1% improvement per year.

But, there's another comment from that report that explains why women tend to get paid less:

"Among the four age groupings of those 35 years and older, women’s earnings ranged from 74 percent to 80 percent of the earnings of their male counterparts. In the younger age groups [below age 35], the earnings differences between women and men were smaller, with women earning 89 to 90 percent of what men earned."

Basically, before women decide to raise a family, they have little wage disparity.  But, understand this.  Women who leave the workforce to start a family and, then decide to return, lose all their former seniority and any raises they might have accumulated in the years they were gone.  Essentially, they are starting over at the bottom rung of the income ladder.

Lastly, all the above statistics are just generalized.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics simply averages all women's salaries and compares that to what the average man makes.  It does not even attempt to address whether or not women are paid less by specific job title, experience, or education.  It is also flawed in that  men tend to gravitate towards the higher paying jobs like engineering, computer sciences, and scientific research while, too many women tend to work as lower-paid waitresses, child care, and secretarial workers.  The only true way to determine if a woman isn't getting equal pay for equal work is to determine it through a company by company evaluation of wages, education, experience, and seniority among the genders.  This report just doesn't do that.  However, the Federal government does have a watchdog in that regard called the Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission.  Everyday they work to insure that companies are fairly paying employees regardless of a "person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information."  So, it's a false argument that we need more government intervention to insure women get equal pay.

April 14th will be this year's National Equal Pay Day.  On that day, expect Obama and the Democrats to paint women as victims of widespread unfair pay practices. Thus proving that their party, alone, is working hard to equal the playing field.  But, all this will be lies.  Last year, the President made a big thing out of National Equal Pay Day.  But, following it, did he or anyone else submit legislation that was intended to close the gender gap on pay?  Did he use his pen to issue one of his patented executive orders?  The answer is no.  Simply, National Equal Pay Day is political theater or, better yet, a Democrat voter registration drive.  Also, we might question why Obama is so concerned about equal pay when he, himself, underpays the women in his administration $11,000 less than the men.

References:

Clinton, Dems embrace Arquette's equal pay pitch - CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/24/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-patricia-arquette-equal-pay/

Hillary Clinton's focus on women's pay may resonate broadly: poll: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/05/us-usa-politics-women-idUSKBN0M10F520150305

BLS Reports: December 2014: Highlights of women’s earnings in 2013: http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/highlights-of-womens-earnings-in-2013.pdf


Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/

Women paid significantly less in Obama White House than their male counterpart: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2128513/Women-paid-significantly-Obama-White-House-male-counterparts.html
 

The Jill Abramson Firing: A Story of Income Inequality and Gender Bias?

America's newspapers, especially those that have the most liberal editorial staff, love to write stories and opinion pieces which expose all of the nation's social ills.  This year was no exception when those same liberal news organizations, in following the Obama's politically motivated lead, decided to write an onslaught of stories regarding widespread gender bias and income inequality for women in this country.  So, its almost laughably ironic that the queen of all liberal newspapers, the New York Times (aka the Grey Lady), is ensnared in a controversy of its own gender bias and income inequality with the firing of its first-ever female Executive Editor, Jill Abramson.

Rumors are flying all over the place as to why she was fired.  The New Yorker claims she was terminated for asking to be paid equal to that of her predecessor, Bill Keller.  There's also the rumor that she was let go for stating that this White House is the most secretive she has ever seen in her many years of covering Presidents.  Then, too, feminists believe that there is proof of gender bias because it was reported by The New Yorker that she was ousted for being too "pushy" and "bossy"; two adjectives that would never be used to describe a male.  Lastly, fuel was added to the fire when she was quickly replaced by a man.

Now, I can't address issues of her management style because only the people who worked for her can; and, that has to be a consensus of many and not one or two disgruntled personnel.  Nor do I have any inside track on whether or not her White House comment was the reason for her dismissal, but I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't partially true.  What I can address is this "equal pay for equal work" nonsense that appears to be swirling around her dismissal and which has been continually stirred up by the President and the Democrats as a means of garnering votes this coming Fall.

The concept of "equal pay for equal work" is too simplistic. It assumes that everybody will do a given job equally.  But, that is a fantasy; especially when you are talking about Abramson's Executive Editor's position at the New York Times which entails deciding what stories will be written and in what order or priority they will be given.  The concept of equal pay completely ignores self initiative and achievement, performance on the job, education and background, seniority, and so many things that determine what someone should be paid in our merit based system of pay.

First of all, there's the experience levels of Bill Keller versus Jill Abramson.  Keller was the "Times" Executive Editor for 8 years before he gave notice that he wanted to leave in 2011.  He apparently was well liked.  Jill was only on the job for 3 years; ultimately ending in a firing.  Keller was also a Pulitzer Prize winner.  So, in essence, Keller should have been paid more for his years of experience and background. That brings us to the reason why American female journalists, in general, are paid less.

According to a recently released study titled "The American Journalist in the digital Age: Key Findings," women journalists are only paid 82% of what their male counterparts are paid; and this is about the same as the general working population of women.  Now, as that report aptly points out, the disparity between men and women is only 2.4% for journalists working less than five years.  But, with 15 to 20 years of work experience, women are paid 21.4% less than men.  While the report gives no direct reason for this, another section titled "Female Journalists Tend To Leave Profession Earlier" indirectly explains the very reason for the increasing pay disparity. Simply, by leaving their profession early, they don't build up their salaries through years of compounding raises. Thus, when averaged in the aggregate, women are paid less.

Lastly, there's the issue of Abramson being replaced by a man.  This is simply ridiculous.  What this implies is that, once a woman is elevated to high level position, all successors should necessarily be  women.  Its like saying, Hillary Clinton should not be President because when Obama leaves he should be replaced by another Black.
 
References:

New Yorker: Why Jill Abramson Was Fired: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currency/2014/05/why-jill-abramson-was-fired.html

Jill Abramson: 'This is the most secretive White House I have ever dealt with': http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/01/jill-abramson-this-is-the-most-secretive-white-house-181742.html

Did the NY Times Fire Jill Abramson For Being 'Bossy'?: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ruchikatulshyan/2014/05/14/did-the-ny-times-fire-jill-abramson-for-being-pushy/

The American Journalist in the digital Age: Key Findings: http://news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/2014/05/2013-american-journalist-key-findings.pdf

Equal Pay Day Theatrics: A Comedy Or A Tragedy: http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/2014/04/national-equal-pay-day-theatrics.html

National Equal Pay Day Theatrics: Tragedy or Comedy?

First of all, if you have never heard of National Equal Pay Day, not to worry.  It only came into existence the day before it was first celebrated with a proclamation by his Majesty, Barack Obama.  Of course, with such short notice, there wasn't enough time to invite everyone to the festivities.  That's probably why no Republicans returned their RSVP's in time.   Also, after reading the proclamation, it appears that it won't be an annual event anyway.  It only existed that one day, this one year, an election year.  I'm quite sure that all women can appreciate this President's valiant one-day effort  to eradicate pay inequality among women.

Sadly, the day was marred by many factual inconsistencies.

It all started with the President claiming that women only made 77 cents for every dollar a man makes.  However, this number is disputed by Obama's own Bureau of Labor Statistics report that states that the current number is 81 cents to the dollar; well up from Obama's consistently, falsely claimed, politically-motivated number.  

Then, there was also embarrassment when it was pointed out that women, as part of the White House staff, are only paid 88% of what men are. The best that Presidential Press Secretary  Jay Carney could do to explain this was to say that the White House was doing better than the nation as a whole.  Well one would think so, since I'm guessing that the female staff members aren't merely waitresses who are able to supplement there legally paid less than the minimum wages with tips.

Of course, no Obama event would be complete without him using his faithful pen and issuing an order or two.  On that day, he used it to sign an executive order and to issue a memorandum.

The executive order told federal contractors that they cannot retaliate against anyone who wants to discuss their pay.  But, the order also states that contractors aren't required to discuss it.  So, if an employee wants to talk about salary, his boss can just say "shoo, out of here" because the President's order says I don't need to talk to you about it.   It also states that the employer is not compelled to make public everyone's pay. That's a relief.  Can you imagine a corporation, of say 50,000 employees, publishing everyone's salary.  Chaos and morale problems would be immediate and intense.  Supervisors, managers, and human resource personnel would spend their entire workday justifying wage disparity, not just locally, but nationwide.

Besides being a waste of ink, this executive order shows how out of touch the President is with business operations in the U.S.  We are, primarily, a country where one's pay is determined by merit.  Raises are typically handed out annually.  At that time, it is common for salary (and job performance) to be reviewed.  Additionally, most businesses have an "open door policy" where employees can discuss any grievance; without retaliation.  Many businesses have a Human Resources department or personnel manager who can intervene if there seems to be an unresolvable issue between a supervisor and an employee.  If all else fails, an aggrieved employee can always file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and that federal agency can guarantee that no retaliation will take place by doing so.  So, this begs the question: Do we have such a massive "retaliation" problem in this country that Obama needed to correct it by executive order?   Just more theatrics from this very tragedian President.

Then, there was the President's memorandum "instructing the Secretary of Labor to establish new regulations which will require federal contractors to submit to the Department of Labor, summary data on compensation paid to their employees, including data by sex and race."  Again, more theatrics.  The EEOC already, by law, collects such data from every business with 100 or more employees, or any federal contractor with more than two employees, in the form of 4 different reports.

Lastly, the day was to be capped with the Democrat-controlled, Senate's passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act which was supposed to mirror much of the President's executive order and apply those mandates to all businesses. But, that failed; for the third time.  It failed because too much of the law was a gift to trial lawyers; giving them broad sanctions to literally sue some businesses out of existence. It never had a chance of passing the Republican-controlled House and that was the real purpose of the re-submission of it in the Senate.  Obama had hoped for passage in the Senate so he could point to the House's rejection of the Paycheck Fairness Act as further proof that the GOP are conducting a war on women.

The real tragedy of that day was the President's fake attempts to convince women that he was doing something for them.  From fake data to a useless executive order and memorandum and a previously failed piece of legislation, nothing attempted or accomplished that day furthered any woman's pay situation in America.  It was all a bunch of fluff to garner women's votes in the fall and distract from the horrors of ObamaCare.  Further, it was a tragedy that the real problems facing women aren't being addressed. Things like jobs, the economy, and truly affordable healthcare for their families.

The rich comedic payoff was watching Jay Carney dance around the fact of the White House's failure to pay women equally.  Just as laughable was the fact that the Democrat-controlled Senate failed to pass any legislation that might have helped them in the fall elections.  This was their own fault by presenting legislation that overreached and would actually hurt the economy and ultimately women's causes. If employers start thinking of women as constant adversaries who will easily take them to court, their chances of even being hired, let alone promoted, could be greatly compromised.


References:

Presidential Proclamation -- National Equal Pay Day, 2014: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/07/presidential-proclamation-national-equal-pay-day-2014

President Obama’s persistent ’77-cent’ claim on the wage gap gets a new Pinocchio rating: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/04/09/president-obamas-persistent-77-cent-claim-on-the-wage-gap-gets-a-new-pinocchio-rating/

Bureau of Labor Statistics: Women's Earnings: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2012.pdf

As Obama Spotlights Gender Gap in Wages, His Own Payroll Draws Scrutiny: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/08/us/politics/as-obama-spotlights-gender-gap-in-wages-his-own-payroll-draws-scrutiny.html

FACT SHEET: Expanding Opportunity for All: Ensuring Equal Pay for Women and Promoting the Women’s Economic Agenda: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/08/fact-sheet-expanding-opportunity-all-ensuring-equal-pay-women-and-promot

EEO Reports / Surveys: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/08/fact-sheet-expanding-opportunity-all-ensuring-equal-pay-women-and-promot

Senate falls six votes short of passing Paycheck Fairness Act: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/09/senate-falls-six-votes-short-of-passing-paycheck-fairness-act/