Equal pay for women

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Equal pay for women is an issue involving pay inequality between men and women. It is often introduced into domestic politics in many first world countries as an economic problem that needs governmental intervention via regulation. Generally, in third world countries due to cultural and/or religious reasons the pay disparity is much higher.

1 United States Equal Pay Act of 1963
2 British Equal Pay Act of 1970
3 Gender Wage Equity in the United States
4 See also
5 External links

[edit] United States Equal Pay Act of 1963

Main article: Equal Pay Act of 1963

Legislation passed by the Federal Government of the United States in 1963 made it illegal to pay men and women different wage rates for equal work on jobs that require equal skill, effort, and responsibility and are performed under similar working conditions.

[edit] British Equal Pay Act of 1970

Main article: Equal Pay Act 1970

The Equal Pay Act of 1970 was established by the British Parliament to prevent discrimination as regards to terms and conditions of employment between men and women.

A similar act to these was passed in France in 1972.

[edit] Gender Wage Equity in the United States

Main article: Male-female income disparity in the USA

Two questions naturally arise: (1) is there actually a wage gap disparity and, if so, where? (2) why and how has it arisen or maintained itself? Over time, two points of view have availed themselves: one that credits the difference to questions of personal choice, and another that ties the disparity to continuing or vestigial bias or discrimination.

[edit] The "Choice" Theory

There have been studies published which have shown that once variables have been removed, pay for experience & education is virtually identical for men and women. This has highly advanced the argument that the pay disparity exists due to different choices and values that men and women consider in their career - men routinely accept more dangerous and higher paying careers than women while women typically choose to devote a substantial amount of their career path time to families and parenting (mommy track).

This is the point of view espoused in "The Wage Gap Myth" and in a recent installment of John Stossel's "Give Me a Break" and described in more many detail in the follow-up reference "'Gender Pay Gap' is pap".

The 'choice' theory is explored from a practical point of view in Warren Farrell's book "Why Men Earn More" (The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap - and What Women Can Do About It). Farrell has advocated the idea that "the power of money is not in its earning but in its spending", and has thus emphasized the fact that American women account for 80+% of consumer discretionary spending, which points to the existence of a massive transfer of wealth from men to women that is entirely over-looked by all studies based only on the analysis of wages -- in fact, it's obvious such a transfer is only sustainable if men earn more to begin with.

[edit] The "Discrimination" Theory

In this point of view, espoused by the EOC and described in "Whatever Happened to Equal Pay", the effects of continuing inequity still make themselves felt in the form of gender segregation in the work force, the undervaluation of the types of jobs held prevalently by women, inequities built into the pay system, itself, and the differences in working patterns (e.g. the mommy track).

This following part may contain original research or unattributed claims.
Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the talk page for details.

[edit] Time of Birth as the Primary Factor

A comparison frequently cited women make 75.3 cents on the dollar to men is derived from statistics maintained by the United States Census Bureau 2003, relating specifically to an across-the-board comparison of year-round full-time workers. Series P-60 of the Current Population Reports maintains regular updates on the distribution of the American population by income, broken down by various demographic attributes, including age and gender.

A closer view of these statistics tends to show that both points of view have missed the mark in serious ways. Indeed, both aggregate statistics and the various methods of breaking down the work world by segments and doing side-by-side comparisons miss the most significant feature of the inequity -- the time of birth: the generation or cohort of the population.

Once this is taken into account, the pattern of inequity in the United States becomes largely predictable. Therefore, it should be considered as the primary factor, with others that may be present derived from it. Indeed, much of what is otherwise attributed to this issue may rightfully be considered to already be subsumed by this single attribute. The society you are born and raised in, in large measure, conditions the values you are instilled with and, subsequently, the propensity toward choosing one or another type of career. Likewise, it conditions the attitudes of your potential coworkers, underlings and bosses ... as well as those who would have the power to hire, promote or fire you.

In this way, both points of view are incorporated as corollaries.

Three interesting features stand out, when the demographics are broken down by time of birth:

For a given generation, the relative wage disparity tends to remain the same over time. Overall, there is a slight downward trend, but compared to nearby generations, the difference is not that significant.
The disparity does not have a history of having steadily diminishing over time. In fact, it reaches its maximum with the generation preceding the baby boom generation, bottoming out for those who reached their 20th birthday in the mid 1950s.
Following this generation, there is an abrupt transition going from generation to generation. Roughly speaking, for the baby boomers' parents, it's around 60 cents on the dollar; for the baby boomers, about 70-75; for those who reached their 20th birthday in the mid 1980s, about 80-85; and for the youngest workers today, it's reached and passed 95 cents on the dollar.

The momentum does not show significant signs of abating, and it is very close to linear. If extrapolated, based on the figures for these generations drawn from the 1970, 1975, 1980, ..., 2000 compilations, it shows an indication of reaching and exceeding 100 cents on the dollar by around 2010.

The best linear fit done based on the P-60 figures for 1980-2000 (and 2001 and 2002) for those born on or after 1945 included 38 data points and a 90% goodness of fit. The P-60 figures used broke down the 15-25 group into 15-20, 20-25 in 1985, but aggregated them for the other dates. The remaining age groups were segmented into 5 year ranges (25-30, 30-35, etc.). The linear fit has the characteristics

77.01 cents on the dollar in 1995 for someone whose 20th birthday was in 1980
3.26 cents on a dollar decrease per decade, for each generation
8.96 cents on the dollar increase per decade in time of birth

A quadratic fit shows a slight tendency toward levelling off.

Another lesser trend (which may be a product of the small sampling size of the P-60 data for the age group in question and large statistical fluctuations resulting from it) is that there is a noticeable upturn in relative wage equity for the oldest workers, whose 20th birthdays preceded the 1950s. This is not just with respect to generation, as already noted above, but also over time. The 2000 P-60 figures for those who reached 20 before 1950 indicate a relative wage level of about 80 cents on the dollar (but 77 in 2001, 70 in 2002, 65 in 1995).

Based on the P-60 data, the following "dividers" may be noted, based on the current age and the period in question:

For 70 cents on the dollar:

In 1970: ages 30 and below
In 1975, 1980: 25 and below
In 1985, 1990: 30 and below
In 1995: 40 and below
In 2000: 45 and below
(In 2002: 50 and below)

This list excludes those born before 1925, whose members tend to be above the 70 cents on the dollar divider, but where the above-noted fluctuations occur.

For 80 cents on the dollar:

Before 1980: Non-existent
1980, 1985: ages 25 and below
1990: 35 and below
1995, 2000: 30 and below
(In 2001: 35 and below)

For 90 cents on the dollar:

Before 1985: Non-existent
1985: ages 20 and below
1990, 1995, 2000: 25 and below
(In 2001: 30 and below)

The disparity seen in the aggregate 75 cents on the dollar (or whatever figure is quoted) is thus seen to arise because the baby boomers and their parents are pulling down the average. However, as they are now reaching retirement age, this masking effect will be removed, and the abrupt transition seen from generation to generation will come to be reflected in a similar abrupt transition in the overall average.

[edit] The Possibility of a Coming Reversal in Gender Wage Gap Inequity

The momentum of the change has been dramatic with the most recent generations. However, a closer look at the figures shows that -- at present -- we are still in the linear region of the transition, with little sign of a slowdown yet. Therefore, the possibility arises that we may actually see a reversal in the coming decades, with women outearning men in the aggregate.

This is the most important aspect of the overall picture missed by the two prevailing points of view. While the discussion continues on why the inequity "still exist", the most recent changes in the world are blindsiding all involved.

A dramatic picture of this change -- particularly how it is being masked under the weight of the baby boomer generation and older world -- is seen in the TV news sector. An aggregate comparison of women's and men's salaries for TV news anchors shows that women are making 38% less than men overall (as of 2000), yet women are outearning men at each age range.

Age Group	20-29	30-39	40-up
Comparison	+10%	+15%	+14%

This is an example of Simpson's paradox. The complete disconnect between aggregate and age-related figures is actually somewhat predictable as a consequence of the gender shift that has taken place in this field. The vast majority of graduates from Communications schools in the United States are now female. Yet, there is still a significant vestige from the older, male-dominated, era -- particularly at the highest positions in the field. The net result is not only a gap in the average ages (29 for females, 38 for males) but, with the influx of women from the colleges, a widening in the age gap, and very likely the aggregate wage gap, itself!

This widening is, therefore, actually a precursor of a forthcoming reversal in the direction of movement, rather than a sign of a worsening situation.

The time inevitably comes when the older generations must leave the field -- whether by the attrition of retirement or death. In the national TV news arena, this has already started to happen. With the departure of the older cohort, the masking effect of the pulling down of the average by the baby boomers' and earlier generations will be removed, resulting in what will appear to be a sudden upswing in the aggregate wage gap and even a reversal.

Reference:

Gender Gaps and Factors in Television News Salaries, Vernon Stone

[edit] Detailed Comparisons

The following data, derived from the Current Population Report, Series P-60, shows in greater detail the progression of the wage gap over time. The birthdates are taken as of March of the following year, the original P-60 data was arrived at by estimation of distributions. The standard error is around 1-2% until later ages around the 60's and beyond, where it shoots up to around 5-10%.

Sources for this and further data may be found in the following:

U.S. Census Bureau; Current Population Reports, Series P-60
1970: 80 Table 49
1975: 105 Table 47
1980: 132 Table 50
1985: 156 Table 34
1988-1990: 174 Table 24
1990-1992: 184 Table 24
1993: 188 Table 5
1995: 193 Table 7

References earlier data on-line may be found in the following:

1970-1991

and for recent years

*1994 Male	*1995 Male	*1996 Male	*1997 Male	*1998 Male	*1999 Male	*2000 Male	*2001 Male	*2002 Male
*1994 Female	*1995 Female	*1996 Female	*1997 Female	*1998 Female	*1999 Female	*2000 Female	*2001 Female	*2002 Female

In the following tables, the starting years of the age ranges are listed. Most listings are for 5 year intervals, though some were aggregated over 10 year intervals. For the older age groups, the aggregation goes the starting age on up. Some figures may need to be more closely investigated, such as the 1970 quote of 72 cents on the dollar for 25-35 year olds. The median earnings are in US dollars, no adjustment made for inflation.

1970	All	25-34	35-44	45-54	55-64	65-up
Male	9521	8256	10258	9931	9071	6754
Female	5616	5923	5531	5588	5468	4884
Wage Gap	.59	.72	.54	.56	.60	.72

1975	All	18-24	25-34	35-44	45-54	55-64	65-up
Male	13157	8171	12777	14730	14808	13518	11501
Female	7726	6360	8401	8084	7980	7785	7250
Wage Gap	.59	.78	.66	.55	.54	.58	.63

1980	All	15-24	25-34	35-44	45-54	55-64	65-up
Wage Gap	.60	.82	.69	.56	.54	.57	.72

1985	All	15-19	20-24	25-29	30-34	35-39	40-44	45-49	50-54	55-59	60-64	65-69	70-up
Male	24999	9050	13827	20499	24573	28020	30341	30290	29250	28967	27483	27714	23694
Female	16252	8372	11757	15986	17805	18459	17507	17195	16788	16716	16835	17832	19178
Wage Gap	.65	.93	.85	.78	.72	.66	.58	.57	.57	.58	.61	.64	.81

1990	All	15-24	25-34	35-44	45-54	55-64	65-74	75-up
Male	28979	15462	25355	32607	35732	33169	35873	31665
Female	20591	13944	20184	22505	21938	20755	22978	22885
Wage Gap	.71	.90	.80	.69	.61	.63	.64	.72

1995	All	15-24	25-29	30-34	35-39	40-44	45-49	50-54	55-59	60-64	65-69	70-74	75-up
Male	32199	16659	25313	30413	35268	37317	41361	40666	39424	37298	41893	38930	42047
Female	23777	15141	21747	23757	25142	27254	26513	25617	24257	23700	24728	31925	27411
Wage Gap	.74	.91	.86	.78	.71	.73	.64	.63	.62	.64	.59	.82	.65

2000	All	15-24	25-29	30-34	35-39	40-44	45-49	50-54	55-59	60-64	65-69	70-74	75-up
Male	39020	20824	31059	36918	40196	43719	45495	48078	47408	45175	48284	47613	45494
Female	28820	18950	26977	29310	30149	30756	31760	32250	30542	29738	33267	33341	36852
Wage Gap	.74	.91	.87	.79	.75	.70	.70	.67	.64	.66	.69	.70	.81

2001	All	15-24	25-29	30-34	35-39	40-44	45-49	50-54	55-59	60-64	65-69	70-74	75-up
Male	40136	21120	31459	36921	41296	44864	46131	47303	47574	45154	51321	45068	43360
Female	30420	19859	28389	30657	31167	31466	32387	33157	32641	29970	35417	35658	33553
Wage Gap	.76	.94	.90	.83	.75	.70	.70	.70	.69	.66	.69	.79	.77

2002	All	15-24	25-29	30-34	35-39	40-44	45-49	50-54	55-59	60-64	65-69	70-74	75-up
Male	40507	21342	31356	37744	41956	45115	47276	48332	49885	47789	51072	54071	51656
Female	30970	19570	29051	31246	31692	31809	33133	34280	33377	32030	35161	31909	36129
Wage Gap	.77	.92	.93	.83	.76	.71	.70	.71	.67	.67	.69	.59	.70