ChristiansUnite Forums

Economics expert says gender wage gap not the result of male bias

A spokeswoman for the Independent Women's Forum (IWF), a conservative women’s group, says protests against the supposed "wage gap" between men and women are much ado about nothing.



Today feminists will be observing "Equal Pay Day" by holding a rally on Capitol Hill. And last month, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-New York) bemoaned the fact that women make "just 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes" and reintroduced the Paycheck Fairness Act. The bill would require employers to prove that wage disparities between men and women are not a result of gender discrimination.

Carrie Lukas is vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women's Forum and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism (Regnery, 2006). She says the statistic cited by Senator Clinton does not tell the whole story.

"The simple truth is that women often make very different decisions about their careers than men make," Lukas contends. "Women take off more time to care for children; we gravitate toward different careers -- careers that provide some flexibility so we have more time to spend with families. And even full-time working women on average spend about a half-an-hour less per day in the office than men do."

The IWF spokeswoman says she is "a perfect example" of how some of the pay-gap issues work. "I'm a full-time worker, but I've traded compensation in order to work full-time from home," she notes. "I've got a little daughter and another one on the way. Am I making as much money as I could? No, but I'm compensated by having this wonderful work arrangement where I get to work flexible hours."

That 77-cent wage discrepancy between men and women does not take into account the many factors by which women are paid, Lukas contends. She says women can make different choices if higher pay is what they are looking for, but giving the government more power to end the wage disparity between men and women "may in fact exacerbate some of the challenges women face."

Amen to that.  And I am sure that similar things can be found as far as racial gaps as well.  Different work ethics and priorities ultimately make for different pay grades. 

If I have two people doing the same job.  Both of them have very similar performance, however one of them has taken only a week of vacation while the other has taken the full 2 weeks, as well as called in sick for a week.  Who am I going to reward with a little better pay?

As one who has been in HR management for many years in ethnically diverse environments, I can tell you that no particular demographic has a monopoly on work ethic or absenteeism.  There are marginal as well as exemplary employees in every segment of the workforce.  Traditionally, women have been the nurturers, and as such, tend to miss more days from work.  However, I know women who accomplish more in 4 hours of work than their male counterparts do in 8.  Women tend to have better multitasking skills.  I'm not male-bashing.  :-* 

Unfortunately, even in 2007, biases are a reality.  They tend to be more subtle due to legal ramifications, but racial and gender discrimination are alive and well in corporate America.  As the old adage states... "there's more than one way to skin a cat," and believe me, many organizations have become quite adept at concealing biases.  Studies have even exposed the practice of rejecting resumes solely on the basis of the candidates' first name (Brittany Thomas  vs. Shaquita Thomas).  Technology is available to screen just about anything your heart desires.  Sad, but true.

I would have to agree with this but it is not just a white male problem as the instigator as is portrayed by the media. We see it being done by many of different nationalities, skin color and gender. The media is full of evidences of it.

Agreed.  It happens pretty much everywhere and anywhere.  Even in our churches you can find it.

And as far as tossing resumes at the glance of a name and such.  I know that still happens.  I admit I was never guilty of it myself...but I know I tossed some candidates without talking to them (usually based on geographics...I would get resumes from people in California wanting a job in Alabama...which would not be a hold back normally..but a $7.5 /hr job is not one I would move for :)  ).   I will admit that when I was hiring folks for phone support I would do a phone interview with them first.  If I could not understand them on the phone I would place their resume on the bottom of the stack, no matter how knowledgeable they were.  I knew if I had a hard time understanding them then 80% of my customer base would have had an even harder time.  And that means complaints and lost customers.  And I did not want that.

Those situations only make sense, brother and I would not call them a prejudiced action.

Absolutely!  There are legitimate reasons to reject applicants, and those certainly qualify.