Carpe Diem

2009 DOL report found that gender wage differences are explained by individual choices of male and female workers

In January 2009, the CONSAD Research Corporation prepared a report for the US Department of Labor – “An Analysis of the Reasons for the Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women.” Although the detailed report on wage disparities was prepared under contract for the Department of Labor, it no longer appears on any government website, possibly because the results didn’t fit Team Obama’s “77-cents-on-the-dollar” politically-motivated and false narrative on the gender wage gap that assumes continuing and widespread gender discrimination in the labor market – to be addressed and corrected only by government action and executive orders? Here is a summary of the main findings of the CONSAD (emphasis mine) which clearly run contrary to Team Obama’s “disparity proves discrimination and requires government action” agenda in regard to gender differences in wages:

In the political domain, the values calculated for the raw gap have been interpreted by many people as a clear indication of overt wage discrimination against women, and have been advanced as a justification for proposed policies mandating equal pay or comparable worth. In the economic domain, the values calculated for the raw gap have been the stimulus for a substantial amount of scholarly research that has attempted to identify the sources of the observed differences in earnings, and to evaluate their relative importance.

There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4% of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4%, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1%. These variables include:

1. A greater percentage of women than men tend to work part-time. Part-time work tends to pay less than full-time work.

2. A greater percentage of women than men tend to leave the labor force for child birth, child care and elder care. Some of the wage gap is explained by the percentage of women who were not in the labor force during previous years, the age of women, and the number of children in the home.

3. Women, especially working mothers, tend to value “family friendly” workplace policies more than men. Some of the wage gap is explained by industry and occupation, particularly, the percentage of women who work in the industry and occupation.

4. Research indicates that women may value non-wage benefits more than men do, and as a result prefer to take a greater portion of their compensation in the form of health insurance and other fringe benefits.

5. More of the raw wage gap could be explained by including some additional variables within a single comprehensive analysis that considers all of the factors simultaneously; however, such an analysis is not feasible to conduct with available data bases.

6. This study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.

Bottom Line: CONSAD’s study of gender wage differences found that “there may be nothing to correct” because of the fact that men and women play different roles in the labor market and different family roles – by choice. In other words, no “Paycheck Fairness Act,” no executive orders, no government action required, and therefore not part of Team Obama’s agenda that places the importance of government action far above the importance of the voluntary choices made by individuals, with any evidence to the contrary being ignored or removed from government websites.

87 thoughts on “2009 DOL report found that gender wage differences are explained by individual choices of male and female workers

  1. So the evidence is that discrimination against women is rare so we don’t need laws against it?

    Perhaps we should repeal laws against murder, too. Maybe there’s too much govt regulation there as well…frivolous accusations of murder, etc….

      • nom! nom! nom!

        troll feeding time.

        i can write a 4 line algorithm to replicate robert.

        10 miss the point
        20 deliberately misstate the argument
        30 use a logical fallacy to argue
        40 goto 10

        do you think you could pass a turing test robert?

          • Turing was gay. Therefore, to conservatives, he does not exist.

            Therefore, Morganovich must not be a conservative.

          • “Turing was gay. Therefore, to conservatives, he does not exist.”

            so, that was a “no” then?

          • paul-

            i mean, wow, right?

            that checked ALL the boxes in one line.

            either i really nailed that algo, or we just saw some very sly machine wit from an emerging artificial intelligence.

          • actually, it also occurs to me that perhaps the spambot called “robert” in reading the program simply followed the instructions in it and produced that response.

            we can test this theory and perhaps benefit at the same time:

            10 stop commenting
            20 get some sense
            30 shut down
            40 end

            hey, you never know.

            it’s worth a shot.

          • Either way, I vote kill. We don’t need an AI uprising. I don’t think anybody wants to live thru Skynet

          • jon-

            based on what i can glean of apparent computational ability, comparing robert the spambot to skynet is a bit like comparing a housefly to an f22 fighter.

          • Morg.

            10 stop commenting
            20 get some sense
            30 shut down
            40 end

            Worth a try. I’m thinking someone ran that code on the Larry G botnet.

          • paul-

            my suspicion is that larry and peak merged into some sort of ignorance/illogic singularity and that, to the great benefit of the rest of the universe, their emanations are no longer capable of escaping the event horizon.

            all the bad ideas and stupidity just curve back on them endlessly. they likely think it’s heaven.

    • Discrimination is a constitutional right, so laws against it are unconstitutional. Laws forcing you to hire people you don’t want to hire or forcing you to work for people you don’t want to work for are unconstitutional. The first amendment guarantees the right to free association, i.e., the freedom to associate and not associate with whomever you want. The thirteenth amendment guarantees the right to be free from involuntary servitude, i.e., the right to refuse to work for anyone and the right to refuse to provide services to anyone.

      • Discrimination is not a constitutional right. If you think it is, tell a black person he’s fired for being black. I dare you. Free association has nothing to do with business.

        your view of the constitution is certainly a fundamentalist view, and like all fundamentalists views, is perverse.

        • Discrimination is not a constitutional right.

          I explained this pretty clearly that discrimination is in fact a constitutional right. Can you find any wording in the constitution giving the federal government the authority to choose who you have to hire and with whom you have associate?

          If you think it is, tell a black person he’s fired for being black. I dare you.

          There are many, many laws on the books that are unconstitutional. The Jim Crow laws that prevented you from associating with those you want were just as unconstitutional as those today that force you to associate with those you want.

          The existence of a law does not in any way mean that that law is constitutional.

          Free association has nothing to do with business.

          Absurdly false. The entire point of business is to associate with those you have a common goal.

          your view of the constitution is certainly a fundamentalist view

          What’s the point of even having a constitution if you can pick and choose at what times to ignore it? I subscribe to the rule of law, i.e., that the rules apply at all times, rather than the arbitrary rule of man, i.e., the rules change based on the whims of those who have more guns.

          like all fundamentalists views, is perverse.

          You think it’s perverse to choose a legal document that implements the ideals of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”? You think liberty perverse?

          • “The existence of a law does not in any way mean that that law is constitutional.” – Ken

            Great points, and it illustrates why Don Boudreax reminds us of the difference between legislation and law.

        • your view of the constitution is certainly a fundamentalist view, and like all fundamentalists views, is perverse.

          Judging by this sentence here, you don’t know what “fundamentalist” means, do you?

          • Fundamentalists always deny they’re fundamentalists in the same way the insane deny they’re insane.

          • “Fundamentalists always deny they’re fundamentalists in the same way the insane deny they’re insane.”

            well, this would certainly explain a great deal about your claims of sanity robbie (which, by the way, are not fooling anyone).

            but it’s not true about fundamentalists. many proudly proclaim this. spend some time in the middle east or the deep south of the us.

          • I think they made the right decision for their customers…not based on his view of gay rights. Just like Alec Baldwin was forced off MSNBC for his views.

          • A simple yes or no will do.

            The man was forced out because of his donation to an anti-gay cause.

            Should he be given his job back, yes or no?

          • So…let me get this straight…

            You say that Elric wasn’t forced out of the CEO job at Mozilla for his anti gay donation by citing a guy who said that he was outed for his donation and then you say you already answered a question when the record is quite clear that you have done nothing but avoid it.

            Boy, you sure are making me look like the boob here, aren’t you?

            Where do all these right-wing loonies come from?

          • I believe in the free market and freedom of bosses to fire whoever they want. So Mozilla was right.

          • I believe in the free market and freedom of bosses to fire whoever they want.

            You are a liar and a fraud. This directly contradicts what you said earlier, specifically:

            Discrimination is not a constitutional right. If you think it is, tell a black person he’s fired for being black. I dare you. Free association has nothing to do with business.

            your view of the constitution is certainly a fundamentalist view, and like all fundamentalists views, is perverse.

            and

            So the evidence is that discrimination against women is rare so we don’t need laws against it?

            Perhaps we should repeal laws against murder, too.

            You’re caught in your own lies, Bobby boy. I can’t wait to see what nonsense you come up with to get yourself out of this.

          • Au contraire. I believe businesses have unlimited power. They’re gods. The free market rules all. All hail the free market!

          • Harry,

            And here I thought I was the dupe.

            I wonder of Bobby is just stupid or thinks we all are?

          • $20 says this becomes another “I never said that!” scenerio like the other day when he claimed that 36 million uninsured are now insured and when that was proven wrong he desperately tried to back peddle and claimed he never made any such claim when, in actuality, he made it 6 times.

          • Since you have no grammar skills, it’s useless to discuss anything with you

          • Well, then. I guess I’ll simply go have my victory cigar.

            Guess I finally found a way to shut the idiot up.

          • Since you have no grammar skills, it’s useless to discuss anything with you.

            That’s really lame even for you.

      • Amen, Ken. A genuinely free society would guarantee the right to discriminate for “good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all.”

        • The hard part about defending freedom is defending the freedoms of those you disagree with, or even find distasteful.

          It’s easy for me to say “Yes, so-and-so has the right to free speech!” but it is much harder to say “Yes, the Klan has the right to speech, too.”

          The true test of one’s loyalty to the cause of freedom and human rights is his defense of others. Unfortunately, far too many on both sides of the aisle fail that test.

          • Jon,

            The Left doesn’t even take the test, let alone fail it. It’s about power to them, not a thing to do with freedom. Herbert Marcuse, grand poobah of the Frankfurt School and father of the New Left, developed the idea of “repressive tolerance” where “…the practice of discriminating tolerance in an inverse direction, as a means of shifting the balance between Right and Left by restraining the liberty of the Right…”. We also know this as “political correctness.”

          • And while Marcuse was doing that, William F Buckley was writing essays in support of poll taxes…

            A) Buckley changed his mind. Marcuse and his followers built a movement on the principle.
            B) So what? Poll taxes and literacy tests would weed out the morons who show up to simply vote for free stuff.

            So we had an obscure academic writing articles that no one paid attention to

            That’s hilarious. You don’t even know anything about the history of you own sick ideology. Marcuse was hugely influential in forming the modern left.

          • You’re right Paul.

            The Left also tried to institutionalize racism. They were major proponents of eugenics (don’t forget that was a major part of the Left platform up until the 1980′s). Some famous ones include Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt. “Progressives” were elected and, during the FDR era, some 33 states has sterilization laws.

            Same with Jim Crow. Jim Crow was a major “progressive” platform until about the 70′s.

          • Buckley was MUCH more important to the right than Marcuse was to the left.

            That’s highly debatable. The various “studies” college majors that indoctrinate young people into believing everything bad is the fault of the white-heterosexual-male -patriarchy were spawned from the “critical theory” gibberish developed by the Frankfurt School.

            Marcuse wasn’t even American while Buckley was a US institution.

            Again, so what? He spread his Cultural Marxist poison at American universities.

            And I’m glad to see you admit your hatred of blacks. The right so rarely does.

            LOL. You’re showing your Marcuse influence right there and you’re too dumb to even realize it.

          • Actually it was southern conservative states like VA and NC that instituted the strongest eugenics laws.

            This is Robert’s game he likes to play. If something happens in a southern state it is by definition conservative. Example: LBJ, Robert Byrd, George Wallace all must be conservatives. I thought he had been sufficiently embarrassed last time he played this game. GUess not.

            And Jim Crow was an institution in southern states as well. So, unless southern states were liberal, you have a problem

            Hey Robbie, are you still sticking with the “New Orleans” is conservative talking point?

            Just curious.

          • Jon

            I didn’t realize FDR was a conservative by your standards.

            He may mean relatively. I guess the scale extends a lot further into the dark side than we thought.

        • The right has a warped view of constitutionalism, thinking that power is its own right.

          The constitution exists specifically to balance power. To the right that’s anathema.

          • puBear,

            The right has a warped view of constitutionalism, thinking that power is its own right.

            The left’s view of the constitution is utterly indefensible. Your argument is that it’s wrong to prevent two people from doing business with each other when they want to do business together and that it’s so wrong to prevent that business, that it will be forced, even if one of those two people doesn’t want to do business. This is like saying that it’s wrong to prevent two gay men from having sex and it’s so wrong to prevent that sex, that sex between two men will be forced even if one of them doesn’t want to have sex.

            That is the warped logic the left uses. You’re so warped that you think that forcing people to do things they don’t want to is necessary because it’s wrong to prevent people from doing things they want to do.

          • Businesses are not private enterprises. Me selling a butter dish to a neighbor is different than me selling cars for a living. Businesses are legal and social enterprises with limited ‘freedom’. THere is no freedom to discriminate.

            Gay prostitution, like all prostitution, is generally illegal. So we know businesses have limited rights.

          • Businesses are not private enterprises.

            LOL… I’m speechless.

            Gay prostitution, like all prostitution, is generally illegal. So we know businesses have limited rights.

            LOL

            Wait! How about : “Gay prostitution, like all prostitution is like you selling a butter dish to your neighbor.”

          • 1. give people the right to have guns
            2. give the rich the right to do whatever they want

            That’s correct. Of course poor people can do whatever they want also, they just can’t afford it.

            so, why is it illegal for you to sell a butter dish to your neighbor?

  2. Can’t. Breathe.
    Too. Much. Irrationality.

    First paragraph from the just-posted BloombergView:

    By Margaret Carlson
    Gentlemen, raise a glass to Equal Pay Day. You’ve won again. You are still making about 25 percent more than the woman next to you who is pushing the same pencil, tapping the same computer keys, devising the same software or screwing in the same widget. Each year, a date in April is selected to illustrate how long into the current year a woman must work to match the amount a man doing the same job earned the previous year. We reached that milestone today.

    All its glory:
    http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-04-08/women-can-t-afford-to-celebrate-equal-pay-day

  3. The Democrats have two key constituencies to motivate and feed:

    … we are told that women are still being denied equal pay for equal work, and another piece of legislation — the Paycheck Fairness Act — is the solution. Note that the legislation’s champions avoid discussing what the bill will actually do, beyond platitudes about helping women and equal pay. That’s because once again this legislation is about changing how discrimination lawsuits are conducted, dramatically increasing the potential payouts for plaintiffs and their lawyers, facilitating class action suits and making it much more difficult for employers to defend themselves. Few Americans would support the bill if they new that it was primarily about helping lawyers, not working women.

    Take the changes to class action suits. Under current law, a worker has to agree to take part in a class action lawsuit against her employer. The Paycheck Fairness Act would change this so that employees must opt out, rather than into, a class. This creates a new burden for workers, but makes it much easier for lawyers to obtain certification as a class and increase the size of potential awards.

    The Paycheck Fairness Act also raises current caps to make the potential payouts from lawsuits much larger. Under existing law, victims of discrimination can receive back-pay for the earnings they were denied, and punitive damages of up to $300,000 when discrimination was intentional. The Paycheck Fairness Act would instead allow unlimited punitive damage awards, including for unintentional discrimination. This dramatically increases the motivation for both lawyers and employees to sue in hopes of a super-sized payout. — USA Today

    Two birds. One stone.

      • It’s weird that you think that it is the right that “serves on the 1%”, when seven of the top political donors donate to democrats. And that the top political donor donates exclusively to democrats and donates nearly 30% more than the second highest donor. It’s weird how the 1%, who is supposedly served so well by the right, donates so heavily to the left.

        I don’t know why you lie through your teeth about something so obviously, and so easily verifiably, false.

          • The right thinks 1 dollar, 1 vote is a great way to run a democratic republic

            It’s what happens when you give someone monopoly power over yourself. Power is valuable, and worth buying. The more power, the more there is for sale. It’s just human nature.

          • Jon,

            I wholeheartedly agree with you, politicians of both sides seek power and power for them translates into loss of freedom for the rest of us.

            We need to elect people who have no ambitions for power and perhaps they will restore our freedoms. It reminds me of the scene from Gladiator when Caesar was asking Maximus to rule Rome after his death:

            Marcus Aurelius: There is one more duty that I ask of you before you go home.
            Maximus: What would you have me do Caesar?
            Marcus Aurelius: I want you to become the protector of Rome after I die. I will empower you to one end alone, to give power back to the people of Rome and end the corruption that has crippled it.
            [Maximus looks amazed and sad]
            Marcus Aurelius: Do you accept this great honor that I have offered you?
            Maximus: With all my heart, no.
            Marcus Aurelius: Maximus, that is why it must be you.

          • Jon

            Don’t think me, Ron. Thank Jason Brennen

            Thank you Jason Brennen – and thank you Jon for posting it here. And thank you for your excellent comment that followed it.

        • 7 of the top donors are labor unions which represent ELECTED bodies.

          Elected by union thugs. The general public had no opportunity to vote for or against.

          So, so what?

        • Yep. Absolutely true. The difference is, liberals want money OUT of politics while the right wing thinks ONLY money has rights.

          The only way to get money out of politics is to eliminate the political power that attracts that money.

        • Here’s the thing (via BHL):

          Dear Left:

          America is suffering from rampant, run-away corporatism and crony capitalism. We are increasingly a plutocracy in which government serves the interests of elite financiers and CEOs at the expense of everyone else.

          You know this and you complain loudly about it. But the problem is your fault. You caused this state of affairs. Stop it.

          Unlike we libertarianish people, you people actually hold and have been holding significant political power in the US over the past 50 years. What have you done with this power? You’ve greased the corporatist machine every chance you’ve gotten. You’ve made things worse, not better. Our current problems are your fault. You need to stop.

          We told you this would happen, but you wouldn’t listen. You complain, rightly, that regulatory agencies are controlled by the very corporations they are supposed to constrain. Well, yeah, we told you that would happen. When you create power—and you people love to create power—the unscrupulous seek to capture that power for their personal benefit. Time and time again, they succeed. We told you that would happen, and we gave you an accurate account of how it would happen.

          You complain, perhaps rightly, that corporations are just too big. Well, yeah, we told you that would happen. When you create complicated tax codes, complicated regulatory regimes, and complicated licensing rules, these regulations naturally select for larger and larger corporations. We told you that would happen. Of course, these increasingly large corporations then capture these rules, codes, and regulations to disadvantage their competitors and exploit the rest of us. We told you that would happen.

          It’s not rocket science. It’s public choice economics. You recognized, rightly, that public choice economics was a threat to your ideology. So, you didn’t listen, because you didn’t want to be wrong. Public choice predicted that the government programs you created with the goal of fixing problems would often instead exacerbate those problems. Well, the evidence is in. You were wrong and public choice theory was right. If you have any decency, it is time to admit you were wrong and change. Stop making things worse.

          You spent the past fifty years empowering corporations and the most unscrupulous of the rich. You created rampant moral hazard in the financial sector. You created the system that socializes risks but privatizes profit. You created the system that creates a revolving door between Obama’s staff and Goldman Sachs. There’s a reason why Wall Street throws money at Obama. It’s because you, the moderate left, are Wall Street’s biggest supporters. Oh, I know you complain about Wall Street. But your actions speak louder than your words.

          You balk: Isn’t the problem the regressive pro-market post-Reagan politics? Please, people. Let’s be serious a moment. Reagan used a bunch of pro-market, pro-liberty, anti-big government rhetoric, but the man was no libertarian, and he did little to make the country more libertarian. Reagan spent and spent, and thus ran up the debt. He doubled the number of imports with trade restrictions. He pursued militaristic foreign policy. He increased rather than decreased the size, scope, and power of government. Reagan ramped up the war on Americans civil liberties (drugs). He wasn’t even a big deregulator—that was Carter. Look past rhetoric to reality. Reagan was in practice just a more militaristic version of one of you. (More militaristic? Maybe I’m giving you too much credit. While we spent Black Friday shopping, Obama spent it having his military murder innocent Afghan children.)

          Point your fingers at yourself. You did this.

          Now, here’s the good news. Unlike we libertarianish people, you members of the left will continue to hold and exercise power. So, learn some public choice, and use what you learn in practice. I’m ready to forgive you, if you’re ready to change.

        • By the way, we definitively see here exactly what I meant earlier when I said so many fail the test on defending freedom. And Bobby here is doing something that is so typical of American politics on both sides (but more on the left):

          He sees a problem, but his instinctive feeling is to blame freedom for the problem and look for ways to reduce freedom, rather than for solutions that increase freedom.

          Take money in politics: lobbying is a problem. Regulatory capture is a problem. No one denies this. But there are two ways to address this: 1) reduce the power of government in people’s personal and professional lives, thus increasing freedom and reducing the incentive for lobbying in the first place or 2) restrict people’s freedoms by limiting donations.

          I am a libertarian and a classical liberal. My goal is to increase freedom wherever I can. If we have a method that can solve the problem and increase freedom, I feel it is the more moral method.

          Conversely, modern day “progressives,” “liberals,” and most “conservatives” look for methods to reduce freedoms. This can be clearly seen by the massive increases in regulation and laws passed and bipartisan support for everything from minimum wage and protectionism to campaign finance.

          Bobby here is the perfect example of this: he claims he supports freedom, but then looks for every opportunity to reduce freedoms, claiming that the right to association is not real, that certain people have no rights, and even that discrimination is OK as long as it is against people who are politically unpopular.

          He is not much different from those who used the White Man’s Burden and Christianity to justify slavery. The only difference now is the targets (the poor as opposed to just blacks).

        • “I am a libertarian and a classical liberal. My goal is to increase freedom wherever I can. If we have a method that can solve the problem and increase freedom, I feel it is the more moral method. ”

          +1

        • sorry posted this on the wrong thread:

          Jon

          I wholeheartedly agree with you, politicians of both sides seek power and power for them translates into loss of freedom for the rest of us.

          We need to elect people who have no ambitions for power and perhaps they will restore our freedoms. It reminds me of the scene from Gladiator when Caesar was asking Maximus to rule Rome after his death:

          Marcus Aurelius: There is one more duty that I ask of you before you go home.
          Maximus: What would you have me do Caesar?
          Marcus Aurelius: I want you to become the protector of Rome after I die. I will empower you to one end alone, to give power back to the people of Rome and end the corruption that has crippled it.
          [Maximus looks amazed and sad]
          Marcus Aurelius: Do you accept this great honor that I have offered you?
          Maximus: With all my heart, no.
          Marcus Aurelius: Maximus, that is why it must be you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>