The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in to your account.Don't have an account? Register
I am making a good money online at home.I have made $24,069 so far this month working 0nline and I am full time student. I'm using an 0nline business opportunity I heard about and I've made such great m0ney.I am genuinely thankful to and my administrator, It's' really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it.just click on this link and vist tabs(Home, Media, Tech) for more details thanks.
please don't copy == in url thanks.
My heart skipped a beat there. For a second, I thought this would be an article about the gap in life expectancy between men and women, "seniority" and all that. Maybe the Economist would say it's an important issue, who knows?
But this is about wages, of course. Then I saw The Economist state outright that men and women are paid equally for the same work. Whoah!
After that, they proceeded to reinterpret the data with the angle most favourable to feminist lobbyists. So everything was normal in the world again. Phew.
I though economists were against tariffs, quotas, etc.
Another way to waste public money - do we really need a costly survey to tell us that the (male) CEO and senior execs of corporations make more than the (female) secretaries in the firm? Yeah, I know, most of the cost is borne by those companies (so, who cares, right?), but there is still a bunch of public servants that will dedicate their careers to this crusade. Not to mention the political class, which has much graver (but far less popular) concerns to address.
After years of badgering by SJWs, we have learned that: 1) The mythical gap shrinks substantially when one controls for nature of work (male engineers make more than female recepcionists); 2) seniority explains away most of the difference (seasoned managers make more than entry-level analysts); 3) the portion due to discrimination is negligible (as TE itself admits); 4) the gap starts when women reach childbearing ages.
Thus, the root cause of the phenomenon is clear: the fewer women who chose upward mobile occupations (engineners, accountants, saleswomen, etc.) drop out of the labor pool in greater numbers (than men) when they start their families. One does not need to reach for "subtler forms of discrimination" or other victimbabble to explain this. This should be sufficient to drop this issue and dedicate time to worthier causes. But, no, companies must "fix" this - and the number of suggestions to do it include:
1. women should forgo/delay children (not going to happen)
2. men should behave like women - perhaps slowing down their careers as they have children (not going to happen)
3. companies should give "more opportunity / greater access" to career advancement to women (interesting proposition, which does not take into account that even most men do not have "oportunities" - which are rare to come by an grabbed by whoever is best positioned to do it).
4. companies should have different (meaning "more lenient") standards to evaluate females who took a break to build their families (also imaginative, but impractical: leaves the company in the difficult position to explain to employees who stayed - male & female - why they are being left behind).
5. companies should be more like the civil service, where quotas for hiring and promotion cn be mandated (let's stop the pretense of even modicum meritocrcy)
6. the government should enforce those rules for private companies (yeah, because they need the helping hand to become more "profitable" due to "diversity")
And the list goes on.
BTW, I resent the fact that I can no longer comment on certain articles because the "comments button" is not available. It is not clear why this is the case, but the paranoid in me thinks that contrarian opinions are no longer welcome in politically charged matters. Case in point, I wanted to write this comment to th article on the subject on this week's magazine, but I could only find space here, in the Daily Chart area. Pity.
Finding new ways to suppress men's wages and give women glass elevators will simply distort politics and economics more.
This mad crusade must stop. Or politicians will arise to stop it. And they will not be nice people.
Equal pay will make women harder to get job. Employers will avoid hiring women. They are not santa clause. They will do whatever to maximize return from their expenditure.
Do you think the problem may be explained by women entering the formal economy at a later stage than men and they are playing catch-up? Fewer women are stay-at-home mothers. With men being in the formal economy longer, with many women preferring to work part-time or taking time off to raise a family, all of this may skew the numbers in favour of men and has nothing whatsoever to do with discrimination?
I think it important to not have a knee-jerk reaction to everything, as in Hollywood, before all the relevant facts have been debated? Politicians are famous for opening their mouths before they analyse the facts.