Obama has a new ad out pushing the “wage gap” myth. As we’ve discussed many times, men earn more than women on average for many legitimate reasons. These include:
1) Men work longer hours at more demanding and hazardous jobs.
2) Men are more likely to travel, relocate or have long commutes for their jobs.
3) Men are more likely to have more years and more consecutive years of experience, because women are more likely to work part time or take years off of work to care for their children.
Given these factors, it would be very hard for men to not earn considerably more than women. When men and women of matched qualifications are working in matched jobs, women earn as much as men do.
One interesting thing about the ad: while in general Republican candidate John McCain has been just as craven as Obama in pandering to women on the wage gap, this ad claims McCain said women concerned about making less than men need “more education and training.”
That’s not exactly true, but it suggests that on some level McCain might be willing to publicly acknowledge that there are other factors behind the wage gap than discrimination.
If he does, of course, Obama and the feminists will attack him for “blaming women” for the wage gap. My prediction is that McCain will never say much of anything on this, but I’ll be happy to be wrong.
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2G7ZDgVSvM]
{ 8 comments }
Yeah… the left tends to get annoyed when you point out women make less on average because, you know, they tend to work less.
I have never worked a job where a woman didn’t make the same as myself for doing the same job. Never once.
There is no question that some women make less for the reasons sited above, but there are companies that still pay women less just because they are women.
The underlying issue here, which is too complicated for a 30 second ad, is there is a law which allows women to sue companies for wage discrimination on the basis of sex. The Supreme Court ruled a number of years ago that the law as written requires a woman to file suite within 6 months of when the pay discrimination begins, not within 6 months of when she finds out about the pay discrimination. The Supreme Court said that may be unfair, but that is what a strict interpretation of the law says and if Congress meant something else, they can change the law.
Democrats have tried to change the law, but Republicans in the Senate, including John McCain have blocked that change by filibusterer. Since employees almost never find out within 6 months of when the pay discrimination begins, they are effectively blocked from ever suing under this law.
Yeah, so why don’t you go do this:
Go check out women vs. men’s salaries on McCain’s and Obama’s Senate staffs.
McCain pays his women more than his men.
Obama pays his women less than his men. A lot less.
Words vs. action. But words are all that matters.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..They just can’t help themselves?
That’s a very interesting argument. This study, does it say what positions these women hold and how much they are paid according to their male counterparts? Or, does it lump all of the employees together and then just take the top paid and line them up in order? Also, how did these people who did this study find out the personal salaries of all of the staff working for these two candidates?
I mean, if there’s an actual scientific study on this that shows comprehensive data on this claim I would love to see it. I always thought McCain would be fairer on women’s issues then he’s currently being made out to be, but this study really proves very little.
The so-called "wage gap" disappeared decades ago. In some jobs, women actually average more than men. Despite the fact that women generally work fewer hours than men.
If anyone says different, I want to see what their evidence is, including how they’ve collected the data. I’ve looked at a lot of data on this, and Glenn’s right; this is almost entirely a myth, and just one of many other ways to bash men and claim our society is horribly sexist and oppressive against women. I’m sick of it, I’ve been hearing it for 40+ years now and it’s time to stop pretending that it’s still 1968 and not 2008.
The truth that no one wants to hear is that men often make the same as their female counterparts, yet wind up working more hours. And the entire system is rigged to make women feel like perpetual victims. I guess it’s worked out for some of them…
Oh,. and if there are still "plenty of companies" that pay women less just because they’re women, can we have a list of some please? Surely such a sweeping pronouncement demands a little hard evidence.
Oh,. and if there are still "plenty of companies" that pay women less just because they’re women, can we have a list of some please? Surely such a sweeping pronouncement demands a little hard evidence.
What I said was "there are companies that still pay women less just because they are women." I did not say "plenty of companies."
This is the NYT story on the court ruling that started this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/washington/30scotuscnd.html
The company that lost the case on facts, but got the result overturned on appeal because of the 180 day rule was Goodyear.
Mikeca: OK, I’m sorry I misread and misquoted you. On the other hand,
The article goes on, I see, to note that this woman could have sought relief through the Equal Pay Act, but chose not to, instead looking for a much bigger cash opportunity.
The laws have for years now made it possible to win huge settlements based on little but prima facie evidence: she made less than less-experienced coworkers, and she was female, therefore she would pretty much automatically win and hope to get millions of dollars.
These laws have long been quite discriminatory against men and have ratcheted up corporate paranoia and helped throw a lot of common sense out the window. They don’t take into account all sorts of things that they should take into account. Given that there’s little chance any of that will change any time soon, I can’t say I blame some lawmakers for using the perfectly legitimate rules of the Congress (approved by the Democratic majority, no less) to avoid making flawed laws worse.
Comments on this entry are closed.