Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (10926)	4/10/2001 5:54:39 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

<<Tuesday, 10 April 2001 Equal-pay issue reveals 'gender feminist' fallacy G ender feminists may as well go ahead and admit they're communists. It'll make things so much easier if we understand our terms. By "gender feminist," I mean those who believe in equality regardless of obvious differences. "They" want equal outcomes, period. The rest of us - Normal Feminists and Other Great Americans - want fairness but understand that "gender" connotes differences and that equal outcomes aren't possible without draconian (read: communistic) government intervention. In other words, "they" believe in equality even if it isn't fair; "We" dirty rotten capitalists, who sometimes come in female flavors, believe that a free market is fair. The pay-equity jihad is a case in point. Those of you who've been busy making a living and upgrading your bomb shelters may have missed Equal Pay Day last Tuesday. I know, you were still nursing hangovers from celebrating Women's History Month and it slipped by. Not to worry; April's foolish days are entrenched and destined for sequeldom. The now-annual Equal Pay Day was sponsored by the National Committee on Pay Equity, which contends, despite contrary research and common sense, that women still earn significantly less than men do. The exact figure seems flexible, but the latest is 28 cents less on the dollar. Whatever the mythical amount, the wage-gap equation is figured on spurious assumptions. To support their thesis, the equal-pay number-crunchers use the median wages of all men and women in the work force, regardless of age, educational level, occupation, experience or working hours. Golly, you mean bosses earn more than assistants? And coal miners earn more than typists? And Ph.D.s earn more than high school dropouts? Well, not in Cuba. And not here, if the NCPE succeeds in pressing Congress for corrective legislation. Keep an eye on Hillary "Hey, Love Your Flatware!" Rodham Clinton, that champion of open-market principles. The real deal on the wage gap is that women and men who work comparable jobs generally earn comparable wages, plus or minus a few cents. The actual gap is closer to three cents on the dollar, according to independent and well-respected research. A 1993 study by economist June O'Neill, using data from the Department of Labor's huge database, found, for instance, that childless women age 27-33 earned 98 percent as much as their male counterparts. This 2 percent difference suggests that motherhood, not gender, is a more likely explanation of wage differences. Yet the NCPE contends that when women earn less, it's because they're women. Ergo, discrimination. The fact is, women and men of equal qualifications, experience and work hours are usually paid comparably. In instances where women earn less, nondiscrimination explanations often can be found. One that springs to mind: Women get pregnant and have babies, which leads them to make different choices. As economist Nancy Pfotenhauer, president of the Independent Women's Forum, put it, "Women make decisions all the time based on things other than salary - enjoyment of the job and ability to have time with their families." Meanwhile, women are entering traditionally male-dominated fields at increasing rates and are being paid comparably, according to the Employment Policy Foundation. Whatever gap remains will adjust itself by the laws of supply and demand. Unless the NCPE has its way, in which case you can bid incentive - and the promise of the American dream - a Fidelista farewell. * Kathleen Parker writes for Tribune Media Services. >> azstarnet.com feminist.com