Equal Outcomes vs. Equal Treatment

Economics

I’ve talked about the gender pay gap before here. To summarize it as I see it, here is a quick rundown of the facts. For the same job with the same experience and qualifications, men make perhaps 5-10% more than women — that is clearly unfair. Yet the average woman working full time earns only 78% of what the average man earns working full time. How do we explain these two results? It boils down to either inequality of opportunity (men are keeping women out of high-paying professions) or a difference in choices — women choose different jobs, either because of personal choice or societal pressures. It’s hard to prove any of those causes — and it is probably a little of each of these — and it’s unclear what the solution is exactly.

This morning on Meet the Press, there was a roundtable discussion on the state of women in America. I was struck by a comment at the very end by Maria Shriver. In the context of a discussion about Hillary Clinton’s role in last year’s presidential primary, she was asked by the moderator why there are not as many women as men in politics. Her response was that women do not want their lives exposed the way politicians’ lives are these days. She finished up saying, ”It’s not that women aren’t competent, but women view success differently than men. They view power differently than men. And they often want very different lives than men.”

I am glad that Maria Shriver, a self-described feminist, can be honest enough to admit that women want different things out of life than men. I think anyone with half a brain can realize that. Yet some women’s rights groups, like the Women’s Center at my university, would lead you to believe that somehow this should not translate into different occupational decisions or different salaries.  The WC has send out information in the past saying that women working full time should earn 100% of men working full time, regardless of the occupations they choose. To them, anything less is discrimination.

Studies have shown that men take jobs that require them to travel more; they work outdoors more often in harsh temperatures; and they work riskier jobs (94% of all workplace fatalities are men).  To borrow from President Obama’s favorite phrase: “Let me be clear:” I think women should be paid the same amount of money for the same work with the same qualifications, plain and simple. One study of people at age 30 grouped people by major and, without even correcting for job or industry, found that women who majored in economics earned 99% of what men who majored in economics earned. I think that’s a pretty good statement for the economics profession.

Yet I don’t think that, for the economy as a whole, women’s average salaries should equal men’s average salaries — at least not if women are working more convenient hours, in less risky and less stressful jobs. The difference lies in whether you are comparing the same job or a different job — and if you work a different job you should not expect the same pay. For example, the research requirements for tenure at SCSU are much lower than those at Harvard and, not coincidentally, SCSU pays a much lower salary than Harvard. It would be ridiculous for me to complain that I do not get paid as much as a Harvard professor when their lives are much more stressful because their tenure requirements are more strict. I made a decision based on what I wanted out of life and I live with the consequence that others in my profession get paid more than I do for working what is clearly a more difficult and stressful job.

Some women’s rights groups want women to have equal incomes despite having different goals, making different decisions and working in different jobs — “wanting different lives,” according to Shriver. That is asking for special treatment, not equal treatment.

4 Comments

4 Comments

  1. Benjamin Seghers  •  Oct 20, 2009 @5:27 pm

    Statistics can be dangerous. For example, I often hear about the statistics about women getting paid less than men. But the statistics alone aren’t enough. It’s important to know why it is as such, and that’s often left out. I think you clarify it quite well. Clearly, the 5-10% issue should be seriously addressed. But the idea of 100% regardless of circumstance is pretty silly. For example, how would we even implement that, from a practical point of view?

  2. ProfSwitzer  •  Oct 20, 2009 @7:22 pm

    There are other theories on that 5-10%, but it’s too lengthy to address them here. Discrimination may be a part, or it may be other things that we fail to account for accurately in our data analysis or that are difficult to measure (like the quality of education, for example).

    You’re correct in thinking that 100% is silly, but that’s what they do. The Women’s Center cites the 76% statistic and says it is because of discrimination. They want equality. Therefore, I’m left to assume they think that the entire 24% is due to discrimination (or they want their constituency to think that). They aren’t even responsible enough to use the National Organization for Women’s own statistics and research, which conclude by saying something to the effect of “even when education and occupation are accounted for, 1/3 of the difference remains.” That’s a “glass if half empty” way of looking at it — I would rather say 2/3 of the difference disappears. Regardless, their 76% jumps up to 92% when you account for the things any responsible researcher would account for. Yet the Women’s Center here keeps on just using 76%. As I’m sure you can tell, I think that’s very irresponsible.

  3. Benjamin Seghers  •  Oct 20, 2009 @9:49 pm

    Interesting. I’ve been reading about this a little more. Apparently, the 76% (more precisely, the 76.5%) figure comes 2004 data. Data from 2008, however, shows that the disparity is such that women earn about 80% of males do, not accounting for any differences in occupation and such. But I suppose the 76% looks better when you’re trying to make a point…

    As for the real disparity (i.e. same work, effort, etc.), that one is a little confusing. If women were being paid less, classical economic theory would say employers would employ the cheaper labor (women) and an equilibrium would be reached such that no (real) gap would exist between men and women. That hasn’t occurred.

    The NYT ran a story about a study (you can read it here) that showed that customers prefer employees who are white males over white females (and black males). So if employers realized white males are preferred by customers over white females, they may be willing to pay more for them. If that’s true, it would suggest there is discrimination, but it’s coming from the customers. (Of course, that would only be applicable to jobs where there are employee-customer interactions.)

  4. Nik Drescher  •  Oct 28, 2009 @11:39 am

    Just because I like to start stuff:
    I guess the workers at the woman’s center do NOT have half a brain.
    The risk reason is very true. You do not see many female deep sea welders, smoke jumpers, Alaskan Fisher”people” and such.
    Even in the MBA field the women getting the MBAs look at me like i’m crazy when I say “Ya most likely I’ll be sent south of the boarder and the company will not pay for my kidnapping insurance. Then after they treat me like dirt for a few years I will start making really good money.”
    It is just because we (men vs women) think of risk differently. I might not “want” to take that risk, but I am perfectly willing to if there is a payoff.

Leave a Reply