Gender Wage Gap Myth

"If women were paid 77 cents on the dollar, a profit-oriented firm could dramatically cut labor costs by replacing male employees with females," write Mark Perry and Andrew Biggs. But they don't, because the claimed gender wage-disparity doesn't exist.

Progressives' perpetuation of the gender wage-disparity and their proposed solution—to make it easier for women to sue employers for equal pay—are designed to enrich lawyers, not women. Worse, the authors' note, progressives' proposal would "create a disincentive for firms to hire women."  [Update: See also Scott Johnson's post, Obama's War on Science and Gullible Women.]

The authors repeat what rational people already know: that many other factors play a substantial role in the male-female wage equation.

1. Every "full-time" worker is not the same—Men were almost twice as likely as women to work more than 40 hours a week, and women almost twice as likely to work only 35 to 39 hours per week.
2. Marriage and children—Child care takes mothers out of the labor market, so when they return they have less work experience than similarly-aged males. Many working mothers seek jobs that provide greater flexibility, such as telecommuting or flexible hours.
3. Education—Even within groups with the same educational attainment, women often choose fields of study, such as sociology, liberal arts or psychology, that pay less in the labor market. Men are more likely to major in finance, accounting or engineering.
4. Risk factors—Nearly all the most dangerous occupations, such as loggers or iron workers, are majority male and 92% of work-related deaths in 2012 were to men. Dangerous jobs tend to pay higher salaries to attract workers.