So, the wage gap is true. Only, it’s men who earn less

posted at 11:30 am on September 4, 2010 by Lori Ziganto

Originally posted at David Horowitz’s NewsReal

The Left is still busily trumpeting the fallacy-filled idea of there being a wage gap in favor of men. In fact, the DNC recently sent out an email once again attempting to promulgate this lie, on the 90th Anniversary of Women’s Suffrage, no less. Hey, never waste a Crisis ™, real or imagined, and also never waste a chance to totally use women, right, Lefties? Have to keep those women in line! By in line, I, of course, mean completely shrouded in a veil of nanny state neediness and victim-hood.

As I said in my article about the 90th Anniversary of Women’s Suffrage, the woe-is-us “wage gap” myth has been shattered, despite the Left’s attempt to cover up pesky things like facts and figures and such. Math is hard:

They’ve gone so far as to scrub reports from the Labor Department itself that shatter this myth:

CONSAD found that controlling for career interruption and other factors reduced the pay gap from about 20 percent to about 5 percent. Data limitations prevented it from considering many other factors. For example, the data did not permit an examination of total compensation, which would examine health insurance and other benefits, and instead focused solely on wages paid. The data were also limited with respect to work experience, job tenure, and other factors.

The Labor Department’s conclusion was that the gender pay gap was the result of a multitude of factors and that the “raw wage gap should not be used as the basis for [legislative] correction. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers.”

What? Individual choice? That’s unheard of. Well, unless the choice is killing an unborn child, natch. Time Magazine is now even admitting the gender wage gap against women is unfounded. And, in fact, that some women are presently out-earning men. According to Time, we should think this is super awesome. They even titled the article “At Last, Women On Top“.  (I think that’s supposed to be titillating and edgy):

According to a new analysis of 2,000 communities by a market research company, in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% higher than those of the guys in their peer group….

Here’s the slightly deflating caveat: this reverse gender gap, as it’s known, applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities. The rest of working women — even those of the same age, but who are married or don’t live in a major metropolitan area — are still on the less scenic side of the wage divide.

Time, while excited about “women being on top”, still whines that it’s not every demographic of women across the board. But,  if it was, why would that be a reason to rejoice? Not content with just reporting something factually, Time Magazine had to editorialize and, in true Lefty fashion, showed their absolute idiocy. National Review sums it up:

As this new research shows, it’s women’s (and men’s) attributes and career choices that determine earnings. Yet there’s something troubling about Time‘s tone, which suggests that we should all be celebrating the idea of women dominating the workplace. To the extent that this trend is driven by men losing jobs and remaining out of work, and young men failing to attain the skills needed to meaningfully contribute to the economy, this is not good news at all.

Of course, we all want women to have the opportunity to compete and succeed in whatever profession they choose. But we want the same to be true for men. Furthermore, given that some women still wish to stay home or reduce their workload in order to spend time raising children, women’s higher earnings may actually be a symptom of hardship: More women are having to work more since the men in their lives can’t provide for the family alone or because they are providing for themselves.

Why would anyone rejoice at the prospect of a reverse wage gap? Why celebrate the sure to continue trend – based on education trends and business trends – of  men earning less? Contrary to the opinion of those who believe that men are the root of all evil and the only thing holding us back from Utopia, it is not a good thing if men are finding it harder to provide for their families. I know. That’s probably my self-loathing and gender traitor-iness talking.

Or maybe it’s reality and common sense talking. No good can come when there are large groups of men who are only under-employable, if employable at all. Nor from mothers who may be forced to work instead of staying home with their children, if they choose to do so.

I’m quite certain that Rosie the Riveter wasn’t meant to permanently replace Roger the Riveter. Well, until the government intervened to “help,” of course.

—–

Originally posted at NewsReal.

Follow Lori  on Twitter

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

It is hard to sleep your way to the top in a male dominated world. Women also don’t shut down their brain when the opposite sex is in front of them.

Khaaaaan!!!

trs on September 4, 2010 at 11:34 AM

opposite sex is Naked in front of them.

trs on September 4, 2010 at 11:35 AM

Women spend most household income whether or not they earn most of it. What matters is who ultimately controls the money, and that’s women. Advertising folks say women decide where 75% of household income is spent which is why Moms are always super smart in commercials and dads are idiots.

forest on September 4, 2010 at 11:37 AM

But.but.but.but….(desperately trying to spin the facts)…waaahhhhhh

Bob's Kid on September 4, 2010 at 11:38 AM

The new meme will be, “men need to be punished for earning more in the past, until the 100,000 years of male oppression has been fully paid off”.

Count on it.

Rebar on September 4, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Great stuff, Snarkandboobs!

MayBee on September 4, 2010 at 11:49 AM

Contrary to the opinion of those who believe that men are the root of all evil and the only thing holding us back from Utopia, it is not a good thing if men are finding it harder to provide for their families. I know. That’s probably my self-loathing and gender traitor-iness talking.

I’m a woman tired of the male-bashing.

ladyingray on September 4, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Men in cities earn more than men in the sticks. Surprise.

So the young unmarried women in cities that earn all this dough, are they looking for Mr. Gooberbar (aka:me) who will happily stay home and mind the non-kids while avoiding all the good ‘ole boy bonhomie’, backstabbing BS and self fulfilling paradise in the workplace that never really existed except in the minds of angry pulcritudinally challenged feminazis? I’ll hire the illegal maid, cook 30 minute meals fm Rachel Ray, go fishing, hunting, cruise in my shiny new car, plan our social life, vacations, honey-do lists, go to the gym for 3 hours a day, and be dressed in celophane with a martini in hand for her when she comes home. What am I forgetting here gang?

I’d love to be a happy homemaker, but believe me, it ain’t easy.

JimP on September 4, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Contrary to the opinion of those who believe that men are the root of all evil and the only thing holding us back from Utopia,

I thought is was already mathematically proven that women are evil.

*This is a joke, girls, don’t go ballistic.

Pattosensei on September 4, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Easily explained away. Just waiting for the Harvard experts to weigh in and correctly interpret this for us.

Amendment X on September 4, 2010 at 11:53 AM

Pattosensei on September 4, 2010 at 11:52 AM

LOL! Can’t wait to show my husband that joke. :-D

Mary in LA on September 4, 2010 at 12:01 PM

Showed it to him. He LOLed, too! :-D

Mary in LA on September 4, 2010 at 12:03 PM

Thats why there are so many Metrosexuals out there. The men are feminizing themselves (hair removal,make-up, etc) just like the women used to get masculine (shoulder pads, business suits) to get ahead.

portlandon on September 4, 2010 at 12:10 PM

*This is a joke, girls, don’t go ballistic.
Pattosensei on September 4, 2010 at 11:52 AM

No, it’s not. My wife makes good ching in her job and she STILL demands that I work harder to fill the bank account back up every month after she empties it.

I put my wallet in the witness protection program.

Bishop on September 4, 2010 at 12:32 PM

I await the democrats “Male Equal Pay Act of 2010”.

darwin on September 4, 2010 at 12:36 PM

When I worked in a steel mill women started to be hired in and we had a “shape up” similar to longshoremen but with seniority prevailing. Higher seniority=better job. Come in late for shape up=sent home. Little blond shows up late, bats her eye at boss and mumbles something about being held up by train. He assigns her a job. Yep, women’s lib worked wonders for the working girl.

Herb on September 4, 2010 at 12:43 PM

of course we now have more women in college than men…and now there’s this:

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/

the guys are getting screwed in the recession

r keller on September 4, 2010 at 12:46 PM

I remember during the Duke Lacrosse faux rape scandal it was reported that the Duke 2007 graduating class was composed of 59% women. And I just shook my head with the realization that this trend was not good for society. However, with the uber left now embracing the muslim community and suddenly “finding religion” with their support of the GZ Mosque, sharia law will take care of this gender wage gap.

devolvingtowardsidiocracy on September 4, 2010 at 12:59 PM

The most dangerous jobs are overwhelmingly dominated by men. In many cases men should make more.

I always knew the men v women argument as the left presents has been a lie for years.

And, in fact, that some women are presently out-earning men.

Shhhhhh /

CWforFreedom on September 4, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Amazing how the women dominated industries get all the government money too. Education, health care, child care, and government paper pushing all rolling in the dough. The women want all these things provided for them from the government.

PrezHussein on September 4, 2010 at 2:04 PM

I have a dream that one day, the US government won’t even know what the hell people make. It’s been at least 100 years since that far, far better condition obtained. But there was a time when our government didn’t spend its time obsessing over income statistics, because it didn’t even have them.

Think about it. Government knowing your income down to the penny has no social purpose other than complaint, divisiveness, and officious “redistributionism.” There are other ways to fund government. We don’t need income-based taxation.

J.E. Dyer on September 4, 2010 at 2:39 PM

devolvingtowardsidiocracy on September 4, 2010 at 12:59 PM

It’s not just college; young women have the upper hand in recruiting and hiring. One, many hiring managers are women and feminists, so they want to help their gender out. Then you have men who want attractive women on their team for both personal reasons and for morale.

OT: looks like UF is going to have a very rough year. I don’t think I can watch the SEC games. Hopefully, we don’t become the new Michigan today.

TimTebowSavesAmerica on September 4, 2010 at 2:42 PM

As I said in the GR thread: It’s not about equality. It’s about Getting Even.

Or at least, that’s the rationalization. At this point I think Lori is probably right: it’s really about control.

Cylor on September 4, 2010 at 3:55 PM

Think about it. Government knowing your income down to the penny has no social purpose other than complaint, divisiveness, and officious “redistributionism.” There are other ways to fund government. We don’t need income-based taxation.

J.E. Dyer on September 4, 2010 at 2:39 PM

But then Christina Romer wouldn’t have the data to craft a proper stimulus and we would be in the worstest Depression ever!
(By the way, J.E., if you have never looked at how the poverty line is defined you really should, You’ll be ranting for days.)

thuja on September 4, 2010 at 6:07 PM

There should be a wage gap. Men deserve to make more than women.

DFCtomm on September 4, 2010 at 6:20 PM

The book:

“Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap — and What Women Can Do About It.”

Came out in January 2005, over 5 1/2 years ago. With apologies to the Author I’ll summarize,

“Women make less because of their choices. Men make more because of their choices. Here’s how women can make more than men.”

It was thoroughly(defensively)researched. At the time Feminist/socialists vilified the Author, and the book, but not the books contents.

This is old news. The news is the message is now starting to make it’s way to the public. However, I predict it will have no effect on Affirmative Action. Why?

It’s important to understand this book makes no sense to socialists. In Socialist’s utopia, your skill, effort, risk, and productivity are not relevant to your compensation. The current label for this is “Social Justice”.

KyserS on September 4, 2010 at 6:32 PM

DFCtomm on September 4, 2010 at 6:20 PM

LOL! Hope you get something started here. I was just wondering what in the world I’m doing here when there’s football on.

thuja on September 4, 2010 at 6:07 PM

Yeah… if we ranted over everything rant-worthy, we’d never get the bills paid or the laundry done.

J.E. Dyer on September 4, 2010 at 6:32 PM

J.E. Dyer on September 4, 2010 at 6:32 PM

Was I that obvious? I was hoping to get someone to come out and play, but looks like football is too powerful. The point I was going to make was that if you base your judgment on risk then men should enjoy a much higher wage than women. 93% of all workplace fatalities are male, and shouldn’t there be a greater reward for greater risk, but you never hear about that statistic.

DFCtomm on September 4, 2010 at 6:46 PM

DFCtomm on September 4, 2010 at 6:46 PM

And who is more likely to utter the words, “Hey, watch this!”, a man or a woman?

Risk may deserve more, but stupidity deserves less. — Balance–.

VerbumSap on September 4, 2010 at 7:16 PM

I’m quite certain that Rosie the Riveter wasn’t meant to permanently replace Roger the Riveter. Well, until the government intervened to “help,” of course.

Rosie the Riveter had every right to replace Roger — she, as an individual human being, entered the workforce and proved she could rivet. That she, by her sex, was required to leave her job and return it to Roger at the end of the war was one of the injustices of the Union Way. Indeed, machine work had traditionally been denied women; the aircraft factories needed workers so badly that not only were they willing to overlook sex but also race in their efforts to meet the needs of our servicemen. My grandmother was one of these — a widow with all three sons in the service, who went to work for Bell Aircraft in Buffalo, New York, building P39 Airacobras. In spite of the fact that she was good, won all sorts of production awards, and in spite of the fact that she was a Gold Mother, when Roger came back, he used his union seniority to bump her.

If women are making more in some industries and at some ages, it’s perfectly fine with me.

unclesmrgol on September 4, 2010 at 7:17 PM

And who is more likely to utter the words, “Hey, watch this!”, a man or a woman?

Risk may deserve more, but stupidity deserves less. — Balance–.

VerbumSap on September 4, 2010 at 7:16 PM

So men are stupid, and the jobs they do aren’t inherently more dangerous?

DFCtomm on September 4, 2010 at 7:33 PM

Unfortunately, until Women start taking pride in marrying men who earn less than them we will never see any equality between the sexes.
Class will always trump ability.
Competition between Women calls for a better Man than they are.
Well?

Observation on September 4, 2010 at 9:03 PM

Contrary to the opinion of those who believe that men are the root of all evil and the only thing holding us back from Utopia, it is not a good thing if men are finding it harder to provide for their families. I know. That’s probably my self-loathing and gender traitor-iness talking.

What is your problem girl? You’re probably one of those women who “respect” their man. Why don’t you hate men, like your told?

Squiggy on September 4, 2010 at 9:25 PM

That dangerous jobs are more likely to be filled by men does not mean that men are more likely to have dangerous jobs. And that unnecessary (stupid) risks are more likely to be taken by men does not mean that men are more likely to be stupid.

The whining is getting old fast.

VerbumSap on September 4, 2010 at 9:29 PM

VerbumSap on September 4, 2010 at 9:29 PM

First of all we aren’t whining. Women have been whining for years that they can’t make the same money sitting behind a nice safe desk that a man can working in a mine, or on a fishing boat, or construction. There is a justified pay premium for the dangers involved, even though you seem to have a problem admitting that being an office manager or lawyer isn’t as dangerous as a being a miner.

I don’t advocate pay differentials for men and women with the same occupation, but I can see a hazardous job having a pay premium, and that is most likely what you’re seeing when discussing any kind of pay gap between men and women. Oh by the way, you should also come up with some kind of remedial training program for us stupid oafs so that we can recognize and avoid on the job hazards in the same way women do, but that wouldn’t work though would it. Women avoid them by just not being stupid enough to take the job in the first place, or is that what you really meant all along?

DFCtomm on September 4, 2010 at 9:57 PM

First of all we aren’t whining. Women have been whining for years that they can’t make the same money sitting behind a nice safe desk that a man can working in a mine, or on a fishing boat, or construction.

It may be whining about women whining, but it’s still whining. Men and women both have choices now, and the past is where it belongs. Everyone needs to get over it.

There is a justified pay premium for the dangers involved, even though you seem to have a problem admitting that being an office manager or lawyer isn’t as dangerous as a being a miner.

Where did that come from? Were the 93% of workplace fatalities you cited miners?

I don’t advocate pay differentials for men and women with the same occupation, but I can see a hazardous job having a pay premium, and that is most likely what you’re seeing when discussing any kind of pay gap between men and women.

What pay gap? I saw “balance”. I commented on the use of a workplace fatality statistic as evidence that the jobs men took were “inherently” more dangerous. That’s not the only explanation for that high percentage of male deaths, and it isn’t exactly controversial to say that males are more likely to take dumb risks.

I see you chose to end on a whinge. Full circle.

VerbumSap on September 5, 2010 at 1:51 AM

Moms are always super smart in commercials and dads are idiots.

forest on September 4, 2010 at 11:37 AM

I despise how the media has attacked men. Things like Dr Mom, etc do nothing but show children that dad is an idiot & mom has all the answers.
Women are no smarter than men.
So if men are ruled by their sex parts, women are ruled by their estrogen.
Bcs every 28 days, there is chaos out there folks.

men are feminizing themselves

portlandon on September 4, 2010 at 12:10 PM

This is why I married my husband. He is all man, though he’s a lot more sensitive than I am.
The feminization of men has resulted in masculine women who cannot do the ‘job’ of a man & men who cannot be a woman.
Instead of trying to be =, we should just realize that we all have a predisposition to be better at womanly things & that men are better at man stuff.
Who do you want dragging your butt out of a burning building from the 2nd floor, a 120lb girl hired for sexual equality in the workplace reasons, or the big burly fireman who can bench press 250?

Badger40 on September 5, 2010 at 9:43 AM