First, I know that the 95% number doesn’t tell the complete story because of the fact that women may not want the paths they end up going down — occupational segregation may be a choice, or it may be more of a social construct. But just as the 95% doesn’t tell the whole story, neither does the 78% — that’s why it bugs me that the 78% is what’s always used. They throw the 78% number out there and say that wages aren’t equal, implying that the entire 22% difference is because women are being treated unfairly. And in the media, sometimes it’s misreported as 78% “for the same job” which is completely incorrect. There’s way too much misinformation on this. My point was to say that when this research is done, it is not mentioned by Women’s Centers (and not included by the AAUW in their executive summary of their report, and included only in passing in the actual report). Why not? Because, as true as it may be, it weakens their argument.

Second, I never said that there is “no discrimination when there is equality of opportunity,” as you have implied. What I said was that inequality of outcomes is not PROOF of discrimination or unfairness (that’s why it’s ridiculous to attribute the GPA differences to unfairness without more investigation into the causes), and that’s what that 78% number is always used to imply. The fact is that women are choosing different paths — the question is WHY they are doing so. (I said that you “first” have to look at these other factors — but you’re right, ultimately you also have to investigate WHY women are choosing different jobs.) If you want to blame social structures that have women staying home with the kids more and being the one that leaves when their spouse gets a better job, that’s a perfectly viable argument and I accept it entirely. But is that really discrimination against women? And is it really “unfair?”

Third, there are more than just two options for the difference in wages between nurses and machinists. It’s not just either compensating differentials or discrimination/social factors — there are also market forces of supply and demand, which help to determine the marginal product of labor for the good in question. Men in the NBA are paid 30 times more per game than women in the WNBA — there’s no compensating differentials or societal story to tell here; it’s largely about the profitability of NBA games that sell out vs. a WNBA league that struggles to sell tickets. I would argue that Economics professors earn more than History professors, not because of compensating differentials or gender differences, but because of their opportunity cost in terms of jobs available in the private sector. You have to include in the analysis the market forces of supply and demand for the good or service being produced with the labor.

As to your cringing: there was supposed to be lots of sarcasm in that post, remember? Don’t take everything I say literally. Maybe it’s blatant deception, maybe it’s lack of space to tell the whole story, maybe it’s ignorance of the research; maybe a little of each.

One last thought about your comment on household production: is this whole pay equity thing just an excuse to get men to do this dishes and laundry? Ryan, start helping out around the house more! Thanks to Ryan for his comment. There definitely must be some spirited debates in the Compton household. I’d love to be a fly on the wall.

See, this is how intelligent people have a dialogue. No name-calling, no insults, no attacks. Just analysis, exchange of facts and ideas, and hopefully a little humor throw in for good measure.

I think it helps to note the difference between wage discrimination and gender discrimination. You write “to study gender discrimination properly… you need to control for all these factors.” Not true. To study wage discrimination properly, you need to control for the factors, but to study gender discrimination it is important to have a measure of the outcomes, given all the different choices that men and women make. This isn’t to say that the full 22% is discrimination – as you note, we need to ask why the genders choose different paths. But the 5% figure obscures a lot of things.

Also to say there is no discrimination when there is equality of opportunity is still not enough I think. A woman may choose to be a nurse rather than, say, a machinist because she prefers to work with people. If the wage differential is due to compensating differentials, then fine this is a choice. But if the wage difference is due to historical and social constructs that depressed wages in ‘women’s jobs’ and increased wages in manufacturing, this is not just compensating differentials. Women may also choose jobs based on their flexibility to exit and enter the market, so they can spend some time at home raising children. The social values on this are changing towards a more equitable share of household production, but change is slow. And as women are (still) more likely to be tied-movers and tied-stayers (i.e. they are more likely than men to move with their spouse has a job opportunity in another location or turn down opportunities in other cities) which also depresses wages. None of these are direct discrimination but they are institutions that work against wage equality.

One more thing because this is the point that Ryan often raises. The ‘women don’t bargain well’ explanation drives me crazy. Why do you think women don’t bargain well or (in other research) do worse when competition heats up? Perhaps it is because girls and women who are strong and aggressive are often criticized as not being feminine enough while for men these are positive attributes. Female politicians have to walk a fine line, for example.

OK, I’ll stop. Obviously a hot button issue in our household!

(ProfSwitzer’s comment on this comment: I can’t determine whether this is supposed to be sarcastic or not. Either this commenter missed the point of my post and thinks I’m a misogynist, or he/she has no problem with the past social structure that says men work and women stay at home with the kids (and lots of women today still have no problem with that, as long as it is their choice to make); I was tempted to delete this post because I’m not sure what it adds to the conversation, but when I started this blog, I promised myself I wouldn’t delete comments unless they were insulting or profane. The commenter is invited to elaborate…)