Report: Younger Women Nearing Pay Equality With Men

Millennial women first generation to 'start their work lives at near parity with men'

  • Share
  • Read Later
WORKPLACE EQUALITY
AP

Graphic shows Pew study results on workplace equality

Younger women in America are nearing long-sought parity with men when it comes to pay in the workplace, but they still believe more needs to be done to reach that goal, and how parenthood will change their earning power remains an open question.

Those are the findings of a new Pew survey out Wednesday focusing on so-called millennial women, those born after 1980. Three-quarters of those women believe the U.S. needs to do more to achieve gender equality in the workplace, even Pew’s research shows them to be the first generation in American history to “start their work lives at near parity with men.”

Despite the gains that young women have made — both in educational attainment and labor force participation — compared to past generations, millennial women believe, as their mothers and grandmothers do, that “this is a man’s world,” according to the survey.

Based on analysis of census data, Pew found that in 2012, among workers aged between 25-34, women’s hourly wages were 93 percent those of men. For workers aged 16 and over, women’s hourly wages as a percentage of men’s was lower — only 84 percent. The report attributes the success of millennial women in achieving near-equal pay to their education gains; it found that millennial women were more likely than their male counterparts to hold a bachelor’s degree.

However, the survey showed that recently, groups of young women “have fallen further behind their same-aged male counterparts” as family responsibilities take a toll on their careers.

7 comments
stewart8030
stewart8030

TakingUpSpace....excellent argument; if men are generally working longer hours over more years, why and how could anyone assert that a gender inequality issue is at stake? Most employers don't and shouldn't pay absentee employees? Employees are paid for work, time, production...which more often than not, requires them to be present in the workplace.  I'm not saying that women should be penalized for choosing to raise families; but, employers should not be penalized by being forced to pay people for work that they don't actually achieve.  Far more women are financially supported by men than are men supported by women.  What's the effing problem?

TakingUpSpace
TakingUpSpace

What does "pay equality" mean when you consider:

Probably most women's pay-equity advocates think employers are greedy profiteers who'd hire only illegal immigrants for their lower labor cost if they could get away with it. Or move their business to a cheap-labor country to save money. Or replace older workers with younger ones for the same reason. So why do these same advocates think employers would NOT hire only women if, as they say, employers DO get away with paying females at a lower rate than males for the same work?


Here's one of countless examples showing that some of the most sophisticated women in the country choose to earn less while getting paid at the same rate as their male counterparts:


“In 2011, 22% of male physicians and 44% of female physicians worked less than full time, up from 7% of men and 29% of women from Cejka’s 2005 survey.” ama-assn.org/amednews/2012/03/26/bil10326.htm (See also  http://www.openmarket.org/2013/06/19/president-repeats-false-equal-pay-statistic-claiming-women-earn-77-percent-of-what-men-do/)


A thousand laws won't close that gap.


In fact, no law yet has closed the gender wage gap — not the 1963 Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, not Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, not the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, not affirmative action (which has benefited mostly white women, the group most vocal about the wage gap - tinyurl.com/74cooen), not the 1991 amendments to Title VII, not the 1991 Glass Ceiling Commission created by the Civil Rights Act, not the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act, not diversity, not the countless state and local laws and regulations, not the thousands of company mentors for women, not the horde of overseers at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and not the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which is another feel-good bill that turned into another do-nothing law (good intentions do not necessarily make things better; sometimes, the path to a worse condition is paved with good intentions).... Nor will a "paycheck fairness" law work. 


That's because women's pay-equity advocates, who always insist one more law is needed, continue to overlook the effects of female AND male behavior:


Despite the 40-year-old demand for women's equal pay, millions of wives still choose to have no pay at all. In fact, according to Dr. Scott Haltzman, author of "The Secrets of Happily Married Women," stay-at-home wives, including the childless who represent an estimated 10 percent, constitute a growing niche. "In the past few years,” he says in a CNN report at tinyurl.com/6reowj, “many women who are well educated and trained for career tracks have decided instead to stay at home.” (“Census Bureau data show that 5.6 million mothers stayed home with their children in 2005, about 1.2 million more than did so a decade earlier....” at tinyurl.com/qqkaka. If indeed a higher percentage of women is staying at home, perhaps it's because feminists and the media have told women for years that female workers are paid less than men in the same jobs — so why bother working if they're going to be penalized and humiliated for being a woman.) 


As full-time mothers or homemakers, stay-at-home wives earn zero. How can they afford to do this while in many cases living in luxury? Answer: Because they're supported by their husband, an “employer” who pays them to stay at home. (Far more wives are supported by a spouse than are husbands.)


The implication of this is probably obvious to most 12-year-olds but seems incomprehensible to, or is wrongly dismissed as irrelevant by, feminists and the liberal media: If millions of wives are able to accept NO wages, millions of other wives, whose husbands' incomes vary, are more often able than husbands to:


-accept low wages

-refuse overtime and promotions

-choose jobs based on interest first, wages second — the reverse of what men tend to do (The most popular job for American women as of 2010 is still secretary/administrative assistant, which has been a top ten job for women for the last 50 years. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/gender-wage-gap_n_3424084.html

-take more unpaid days off

-avoid uncomfortable wage-bargaining (tinyurl.com/3a5nlay)

-work fewer hours than their male counterparts, or work less than full-time instead of full-time (as in the above example regarding physicians)


Any one of these job choices lowers women's median pay relative to men's. And when a wife makes one of the choices, her husband often must take up the slack, thereby increasing HIS pay. 


Women who make these choices are generally able to do so because they are supported — or, if unmarried, anticipate being supported — by a husband who feels pressured to earn more than if he'd chosen never to marry. (Married men earn more than single men, but even many men who shun marriage, unlike their female counterparts, feel their self worth is tied to their net worth.) This is how MEN help create the wage gap: as a group they tend more than women to pass up jobs that interest them for ones that pay well. 


More in "Will the Ledbetter Act Help Women?" at http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/will-the-ledbetter-fair-pay-act-help-women/



BennDover
BennDover

no it wouldn't.  you chicks want everything equal, except for benefits, which you demand pay 3 mos for maternity, while I do your work.  I got a way you can make some extra $...

Realworldnonfantasyland
Realworldnonfantasyland

Wouldn't be a better business decision to pay the women instead of the men if there is a such thing as discrimitory pay. 

JohnDagne
JohnDagne

This is kind of true. As men keep getting paid less it will appear that women are approaching parity. The fact is they are both getting  less money.