Equal Pay Day and Hillary Clinton

Last week, on Equal Pay Day, Hillary Clinton trotted out her consistently false claim that women only make 77 cents on the dollar when compared to men.  Seriously?  Does anyone really think that employers across this nation are underpaying women by 23% and, by doing so, are in direct violation of the federal law entitled the Equal Pay Act of 1963? And, further, those employers are doing it right under the noses of the very federal agency, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which is tasked with insuring that pay discrimination doesn't exist on the basis gender, race, age, or religion. If pay discrimination by sex was so prevalent in this nation, why is it that the EEOC only litigated 26,396 sex discrimination cases last year, of which, only 29.5% were charged as violations of the law.  By Hillary's way of thinking, there should have been millions of cases, with most of them found guilty of discrimination; not just 29.5%.

Here's the truth.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in its latest annual report for 2014 titled Highlights of Women's Earnings, women made an average of 83 cents on the dollar when compared to men; up from 82 cents and 81 cents in 2013 and 2012, respectively.  So, one has to wonder where Hillary got the 77 cents number which she has been repeating for years. Now, you have to understand that this number is an aggregate total of women's wages across all professions that women work in, compared to the aggregate total of wages across all the professions that men work in.

The simple truth is that men gravitate to higher paying jobs while women gravitate towards lower paying jobs.  For example, the Women's Bureau of the Department of Labor, reports that, of the leading 20 jobs held by women, 96% of secretaries are women.  Additionally, women hold 84% of clerk positions; 95% of childcare workers;  71% of waiter/waitresses; and 89% of maids and housekeepers.  On the other hand, women only make up 12% to 39% of high paying jobs in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; otherwise known as STEM jobs.  Just 36% of women hold a Master of Business Administration (MBA).  A graduate degree that is both highly prized by businesses and well compensated.

Also, there are additional factors that can lower a woman's pay.  For example, women who leave the workforce to raise a family, and then, years later return, will see their pay lowered.  This is why on Table 1 of the "Highlights" report (linked below) and before age 35, women earn 91 cents compared to men.  After 35, the number drops to 81 cents.  But, for women "Never Married", the comparative number is high at 94 cents.  This is also why nearly 80% of part time workers are women, enabling them to  still take care of their families while earning additional wages.  Women also work 52 minutes less per workday than men, and for hourly workers, this represents a 12% drop in average incomes.

The issue here is that Hillary wants women to think they are all victims and, as such, she would be the perfect candidate to take on wage discrimination.  But, unless Hillary can force women to work more hours, seek higher degrees, higher paying jobs, and stop raising families, zero income inequality isn't going to happen.  So, women!  Don't look at the guy working right next to you and think he's making 23% more than you are.  It's a just a political lie!

References:

2016: Equal Pay Day: Hillary Clinton praises members of US women’s football team who are suing for equal pay: A woman in the US earns 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes, on broad average, and women of ethnic minorities earn much less:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/equal-pay-day-hillary-clinton-praises-megan-rapinoe-women-football-players-suing-for-equal-pay-a6981046.html

2007: Last month, Sen. Hillary Clinton expressed consternation that women continue to make "just 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes": http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040201262.html

Equal Pay Act of 1963 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: https://www.eeoc.gov/

Enforcement & Litigation Statistics: https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/charges.cfm

Women's Bureau: 20 Leading Occupations of Employed Women 2010 Annual Averages (employment in thousands): http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/20lead2010_txt.htm

Highlights of women’s earnings in 2014: http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-earnings/archive/highlights-of-womens-earnings-in-2014.pdf

Time spent working by full- and part-time status, gender, and location in 2014: http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/time-spent-working-by-full-and-part-time-status-gender-and-location-in-2014.htm

The Gender Scorecard for Business Schools: http://poetsandquants.com/2015/05/02/a-gender-scorecard-for-business-schools/

Women Still Underrepresented in STEM Fields: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/10/21/women-still-underrepresented-in-stem-fields

CNBC Poll: Only 24% Give Obama Good Marks On The Economy

Just last week, President Obama gave a speech at Northwestern University to hype his economic accomplishments.  But, as I have said before in this blog, people aren't feeling real good about their particular economic situations because their incomes are still lower than when Obama took office; and, most of the jobs created are low paying.  Note this pictorial from a New York Times article on that very topic:

Click on image to zoom

This is why, in the latest CNBC poll, Obama only gets a 24% approval rating on the economy; down from 33% a year ago.

However, this seems to escape the folks at CNBC.  They seem perplexed by the fact that the President's poll numbers are so low even with an improving economy.  In the video (see first link below), CNBC's Chief Economist, Steve Liesman can't understand why improving unemployment numbers haven't helped the President.  But, Liesman, like so many other cheerleaders and apologists for Obama, would be well advised to look at the low quality of those falling unemployment numbers.  Maybe, then, he would understand why people don't like the current handling of the economy.

References:

October 7th: Confidence in Obama on economy sinks to new low: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102063107?trknav=homestack:topnews:1

October 2nd: Obama Touts Economic Gains Under His Watch: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/obama-speak-economy-northwestern-25909807

Recovery Has Created Far More Low-Wage Jobs Than Better-Paid Ones: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/business/economy/recovery-has-created-far-more-low-wage-jobs-than-better-paid-ones.html

Obama's Disingenuous 10 Million Job Creation Claim

At a Congressional Black Caucus Foundation event last week, Barack Obama took credit for creating 10 million new jobs in the last 54 months.  Of course, what he didn't tell this African-American group is that blacks got very few of those 10 million jobs.  That's because, in 2009, when he took office, black unemployment was 12.6%.  Today, it has only mildly decreased to  11.4%; or, only a 9.5% improvement. On the other hand, white unemployment now stands at 5.3% after having been at 6.9% when Obama took office; a 23% reduction in that unemployment rate.

Nor, did he mention that before creating 10 million jobs, 4.3 million where lost.  Something that was never supposed to happen with the passage of his near trillion dollar stimulus package.  Nor, did he own up to the fact that in most of those 54 months, there was only job creation because workers stopped looking for work.  For example, last month saw a job growth of 142,000.  At the same time,  268,000 able-bodied workers just gave up looking.  If those 268,000 workers, when polled, had said they were still looking for work, they would had been counted as part of the workforce and, as a result,  there would have been a reported loss of 126,000 jobs instead of the reported gain.  Today, the real unemployment rate, when adding in those workers who have given up, is 12%.  That means that there are 9.3 million workers who are sitting home when they could actually be working.  A number almost equal to the number of jobs that Obama claims to have created.

Lastly, half of all the jobs created by the President have been low paying.  That's why median incomes continue to be lower than they were when he took office:

References:

Obama proudly announces 10m jobs created since he was elected - but he forgot to mention the 4.3m lost along the way: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2772360/Obama-proudly-announces-10m-jobs-created-elected-forgot-mention-4-3m-lost-way.html

Employment Report January 2009: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.htm

August 2014 Employment Report: Table A-2. Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm

Alternative Measures of Unemployment: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

 Half Of All Jobs Created In The Past 3 Years Were Low-Paying: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/13/low-paying-jobs_n_3266737.html

Real Median Household Incomes: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgrEZN56FgagV7kK68-FbuUtVMNcdA4gJRlDCQe8MJhfpK4tstbMzL2ydC17Kgf6WaU2UNvvI-LiAPsh0L4XT8h3z5bsTUjMBtlbmkUILa1Kic3fRovz9hhoSH4VWhwG_8GJHniP5yo9k/s1600/RealHousehold2013.PNG

Source of Graph: Census: Poverty Rate declined in 2013, Real Median Income increased slightly: http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/09/census-poverty-rate-declined-in-2013.html