Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
TOP NEWS   LeftArrow - Townhall.com   RightArrow - Townhall.com  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Friday, August 03, 2007
Quit Complaining
By Linda Chavez
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Are you struggling to keep up with rising gas prices?


Ever wonder why women, on average, make less money than men? For years, feminists have argued that discrimination is to blame. But most careful studies show that once you take into account differences in the hours worked, years of experience, and the actual occupational or professional category in which women work, the gap narrows considerably.

If you add marital status to the mix (married men earn the highest salaries, married women the lowest), the differences virtually disappear among the youngest groups of working men and women.

Now, a group of economists has come up with a different explanation of the pay gap -- one that adds a surprising bit of nuance to the "discrimination" thesis. According to a study by economics professor Linda C. Babcock of Carnegie Mellon University, reported recently in the Washington Post, women may not actually ask for as much money as men. And their reticence costs them in both starting pay and in earning higher raises.

Babcock and her colleagues observed how men and women reacted when told they would be paid according to a sliding scale. Men were eight times more likely to ask for higher compensation than they were initially offered to participate in a simple experiment. Even when told that the payment was negotiable, only 58 percent of the women, but 83 percent of the men, asked for more money.

And other studies have examined whether this female acquiescence applied in the real world beyond a laboratory experiment. A survey of students who received job offers after earning master's degrees demonstrated that more than half the men, but only 12.5 percent of women, negotiated for higher salaries than they were initially offered.

Babcock and her co-authors argue that this behavior may not be entirely self-defeating, however, since women may be penalized subtly if they are too aggressive. Their studies show that both male and female supervisors react more negatively to women who try to negotiate higher pay. But male supervisors don't penalize men who do so, while female supervisors prefer both men and women who aren't pushy when it comes to salary, accepting whatever they are offered.

Apparently it took years of study and, no doubt, substantial research grants, to determine something most of us realized all along: Men and women behave differently. In the past, feminists maintained, against all evidence to the contrary, that there were no differences between the two sexes, and any that might seem to exist were just a matter of socialization.

The first efforts to narrow the pay gap aimed at encouraging women to go into previously all-male jobs. Women should be just as eager to become plumbers, lumberjacks and long-haul truck drivers as men, they argued. When women didn't flock to most male-dominated jobs, the feminists then urged that we raise the wages in female-dominated job categories to close the pay gap. Nurses should make more money than electricians; child-care workers should earn more than tree trimmers; and librarians should earn more than garbage collectors.

But there is no central wage-setting mechanism in this country that could enforce such arbitrary efforts to increase pay in female-dominated jobs, thankfully. So these efforts to eliminate the wage gap also failed. And if these recent studies are correct, even if starting wages for women were higher, many women's salaries would eventually fall behind their male co-workers' because they failed to demand raises. But discrimination isn't the cause.

Discrimination -- against women, minorities or white men, for that matter -- still occurs on an individual basis. Even with harsh penalties and aggressive enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, some employers will choose to hire or promote based on their own prejudices. But employers who make a habit of rewarding less qualified individuals over better qualified ones will pay dearly for those prejudices in lower productivity -- and lower profits -- over time. And those employers who reward merit and effort will benefit by being able to attract the best workers -- that is, unless the workers themselves give up.

Marketplace economics works to reward talented individuals, but only if those individuals are willing to take risks on their own behalf. Women need to learn to play the game -- or quit complaining that they're underpaid.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Linda Chavez is chairman of the Center for Equal Opportunity and author of Betrayal: How Union Bosses Shake Down Their Members and Corrupt American Politics .

Be the first to read Linda Chavez's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate
Subject: Kathy/Andrew
Kathy63:

"Linda is right on the money as usual with this column."

Not 'as usual' - She may be right on the money with this column because she's presenting the analysis someone else produced. In labor market and union issues, she has excelled in the past. But when she became a shill for the Bush Illegal Mexican Invasion amnesty, she alienated many of her supporters.

And I don't appreciate the way you characterized JC's opposition to Chavez - it was the slimy liberal tactic of name calling and accusations of bigotry that's meant to shut people up. If that's how you argue, why don't you get lost.

Andrew:

See above - you're too rancid to even address.

Derek Leaberry
Sir, you are a nitwit. I hope your little house slave knows how to curtsey. Do you have the windows of her quarters painted black too?

In the 1970s when I was fighting the good fight to get that civil engineering position, I was told pretty much what you said -- that "Girls" DID NOT WANT TO do the work I was doing, so there were no jobs for them, that Girls would hear rough language on job sites, that there would be no place for us to go to the bathroom, and that we were better off as secretaries until we got married. I was even asked if I was seeking this job in order to catch a husband!

Contrary to the opinion of the guy who said that Girls don't know how to play Office Politics, because Girls apparently are passive little followers happy to pick up the crumbs dropped from their masters' tables, the knock against me has always been -- by women -- that "You argue like a man!" I can do down any guy or, even better, slide around him and speed away, while he is scratching his goolies and trying to find a way to dump the last of the work on his "girl". Like every other, this is a skill, and whatever you two think, women can learn it and lots of us do. As the saying goes, we are becoming the men our mothers wanted us to marry. And shock-and-awe, we are happy. The fastest growing demographic in everything from home ownership to the purchase of sports cars, is unmarried women over 35. Get used to it. We are.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily dose of conservative columns, editorial cartoons, talk radio, news, and more!
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.