Wage Equality Among Sexes Even Possible?

[david.molyneux]

The Wage Gap as a societal "issue" has been thoroughly debunked for some time now*, and while it is still trotted out regularly by "activists", male and female, no honest examination of the facts allows for it to be swallowed by any intelligent person. Most people who intelligently refute the Wage Gap do so by drawing attention to the many differences in the choices that men and women make; ultimately these choices do lead to a significant disparity in wages, yearly and over the course of a career.

 

However, there is more to it than choice; to say that the only reason men and women earn differing amounts boils down to nothing more than choices tacitly implies that if only women made different (or, through a feminist lens, "better") choices, that gap would disappear. However, this is false supposition; regardless of what choices they make, women as a sex will never earn the same amount of money as men. It is this point that I intend to prove by means of this post.

 

Let's set the stage and imagine that we could do away with the choice factor entirely. This could only be accomplished via Orwellian interference on a scale never before seen. First**, men and women would need to be forced to populate each job sector and every role within it in equal numbers (those already in the workforce would either need to be forcibly retired or reallocated as needed). Second, they would then need to be paid the same wages on an hourly basis (while also being forced to work the exact same number of hours, thereby eliminating the predominantly male advantage of being willing to work inhumane amounts of overtime).

 

Why hourly? Well, that brings me to the crux of my argument, so let's see what conclusion we come to when we approach the matter as we might if discussing it in conversation. Ask any honest person, male or female, this question: Is either sex superior to the other, in terms of basic, average intellectual capacity? In the vast majority of the cases, they will answer in the negative, and quickly assert that men and women are equals. Some might sight evidence that backs one sex or the other in a given profession, but by and large people believe in male/female equality (bear in mind that we are talking about your average worker, not physicists or chess grandmasters). Follow that question up with this one: Is either sex superior to the other, in terms of basic, average physical strength and endurance? This question is an easy one to give an honest answer to; only someone that is hopelessly deluded would ever assert that women are more capable of hard, physical labor over any period of time.

 

So to what conclusion do these answers lead us? The job market includes both labor-intensive and sedentary positions. It's obvious that the sex which has a clear and quantifiable advantage in any physically demanding field will ALWAYS outperform the other when calculating the sum of their efforts. The desk jobs may have perfectly equal outcomes; men and women working the same number of hours at a keyboard will most likely show little or no difference in productivity (for the purpose of this argument, we are ignoring psychological, emotional or societal factors; they will prove to be irrelevant to the greater point). On the other hand, those jobs that require manual labor give a natural edge to men, and they always will; therefore it would be entirely unjust to pay Bob the same amount of money as Barb when he carried 60% more shingles from point A to point B, or unloaded 200% more boxes on the loading dock that day. Of course, there are already many hourly positions wherein this is exactly the case.

 

The beauty of this argument, in my opinion, is that not one controversial or contentious thing needs to be said in order for the point to be made. Short version would be as simple as this:

 

"Do you believe men and women are intellectually equal, by and large?" - Yes.

 

"Okay, do you also believe that most men are larger and stronger than most women?" - Yes.

 

"Okay, will there always be physically demanding jobs that favor larger, stronger people?" - Yes, until the robots take over anyhow.

 

"Right then, there will always be an overall Wage Gap so long as people are paid a fair share for their work."

 

 

 

You might ask: What is the value of examining this, or even bothering to come to such a conclusion? Simply put, so that we can worry about more important things, and not quibble over percieved injustices. Hopefully, this reasoning will also assist anyone that does end up in a debate about this issue.

 

 

*http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/01/no-women-don-t-make-less-money-than-men.html

 

**Obviously, there is the alternate route of simply paying women whatever men make, without any attempt at creating a system which at least outwardly justifies it. However, the point of this post is to illustrate to a sane and reasonable person why even perfectly equal conditions will not result in perfectly equal or just results. Key word: just.

[Copper_Heart]

Hi,

I think your article could be improved by adding some reason behind it and why do you think it could be useful. So that it has more of your personal view to frame the logical exercise presented here.

 

Also I would like to add that in my country, or in any western country, it is by law forbidden to pay different wage on base of sex. So difference is not in "wages", but in "earnings".

[Mister Mister]

what does it mean men and women are intellectually equal?

[Wuzzums]

I don't understand what you're trying to say exactly. Wage equality means equal pay for equal work. If person A is more suited for a job than person B then it's only fair person A should be paid more IF they're providing better/more work.

 

Gender doesn't matter. Some men are a lot more physically stronger than others, does this mean there's a pay gap within the male population?

[Worlok]

I don't understand what you're trying to say exactly. Wage equality means equal pay for equal work. If person A is more suited for a job than person B then it's only fair person A should be paid more IF they're providing better/more work.

 

Gender doesn't matter. Some men are a lot more physically stronger than others, does this mean there's a pay gap within the male population?

 

Yeah, It's called professional sports. Highly physically capable, skilled people are paid lots of money for being superior specimens. But that's just the real elite.

 

Superior people that do superior things in the context of their work are paid more. Some people simply are superior while others must strive to be.

[david.molyneux]

Hi,

 

I think your article could be improved by adding some reason behind it and why do you think it could be useful. So that it has more of your personal view to frame the logical exercise presented here.

 

Also I would like to add that in my country, or in any western country, it is by law forbidden to pay different wage on base of sex. So difference is not in "wages", but in "earnings".

I did not add a personal perspective because I personally do not have a dog in the fight, so to speak. I was presenting this as a logical answer to the "wage gap" so frequently cited. I don't think women "should" earn less, I am simply claiming that without total automation such a thing as "equal earnings" isn't even possible.

[david.molyneux]

what does it mean men and women are intellectually equal?

 

I mean in this context that the average man and average woman are roughly equals in terms of intelligence and that the difference between their ability to perform everyday office tasks is not sufficienty disparate to explain the difference in the wages earned by men and women. There are other, physical and choice-based factors and work, and even if you were to seperate the choice factor completely from the equation it still wouldn't balance. Therefor clamoring for "eqaul pay" when such a thing is already legally enforced is a fool's errand and not productive. Investigate cases where women (or men) are being unfairly paid less, or being given poor treatment, etc. but working for a tomorrow that cannot possibly come is pointless.

Hi,

 

I think your article could be improved by adding some reason behind it and why do you think it could be useful. So that it has more of your personal view to frame the logical exercise presented here.

 

Also I would like to add that in my country, or in any western country, it is by law forbidden to pay different wage on base of sex. So difference is not in "wages", but in "earnings".

 

 

Yes, I aware of that, hence I made the statement "women as a sex will never earn the same amount of money as men" as well as explaining why the "earning" portion was key. I also linked to an article debunking the idea that men make more than women for the exact same output.

[Wuzzums]

Yeah, It's called professional sports. Highly physically capable, skilled people are paid lots of money for being superior specimens. But that's just the real elite.

Yes, because R. Roussey still gets paid less than any other MMA male fighter.

[david.molyneux]

I don't understand what you're trying to say exactly. Wage equality means equal pay for equal work. If person A is more suited for a job than person B then it's only fair person A should be paid more IF they're providing better/more work.

 

Gender doesn't matter. Some men are a lot more physically stronger than others, does this mean there's a pay gap within the male population?

 

 

This is exactly what my article said, that equal pay should be given for equal work. And that given the disparity between the physical ability of men and women, women will never be able to have the same NET output as a sex as men, and by extension will never earn as much.

 

And yes, there is; beyond the world of professional sports, you can find that physically fit, strong men are going to make more on a construction site, farm, factory floor, etc. than weak, older men. The top 25% of women, in terms of strength, overlap with the bottom 25% of men. Also, the lung capacity of women in their physical prime is roughly the same as that of an average man in his 50's, meaning that they are typically unable to keep up with their male peers in back-breaking conditions.

 

There are weaker men that would not do as well as those in the more physically demanding fields, just as there are those that are less intelligent that are able to make up for it by using strength and stamina to work those same jobs (I've known many myself, having worked in construction for years, on and off). Women who lack the intelligence or acumen for mentally rigorous work are generally also unsuited to do the same as unintelligent men (speaking in general terms here).

 

I'll use myself as an example of the broad spectrum of jobs that a young man might take on. Currently, I work as an anaylst for a large company and am responsible for designing and configuring upgrades for our software. It's entirely information-based, and ranges from complex tasks to simple data entry. A few short years ago, I worked the same type of hours carrying two 70-lb. bundles of shingles up ladders for roofers, carrying and mixing 80-lb. bags of cement, unloading and stacking concrete block, and setting up and taking down scaffolding for masons, etc. I'm 6' tall and probably in the top 25% of untrained men (meaning I am not a bodybuilder or pro-athlete) in terms of strengh. If I were to trade places with a woman of the exact same percentiles for intelligence and strength, she would doubtless be able to do the job now. She may even be able to earn a respectable living doing the same construction work that I did. However, as we were paid based on the job being completed and not the hours spent working, she would not be able to generate the same income for the company, or help them get as many jobs done. In all the years I did that type of work, I can only recall on woman, out of dozens, that was able to carry even one 70-lb. bundle of shingles up a 20-ft. ladder, and even she was unable to do so for more than a few trips. I'm sure there are women out there who could, and probably even a few that could outwork me (most of them on a cocktail of steroids, but a few that weren't perhaps).

 

My point is that far more men have this latitude to work within than do women. This, combined with the choices men and women make, based in part on their biology, means that they will never reach wage-parity as a whole. Stefan has done a podcast or two on this topic; my (hopefully) helpful addition to the conversation is that outside of making sure no one is being discriminated against, we ought to stop worrying about whether men and women are making the same amount, or imagining that they ever could (outside of 100% automation of all physically demanding jobs).

[david.molyneux]

Yes, because R. Roussey still gets paid less than any other MMA male fighter.

That has everything to do with how much of a "draw" a fighter is, and therefore how much revenue they generate. R.R. being popular and generating interest (and by extension revenue) is not an argument against the idea that men earn more even without factoring in choice.

[shirgall]

That has everything to do with how much of a "draw" a fighter is, and therefore how much revenue they generate. R.R. being popular and generating interest (and by extension revenue) is not an argument against the idea that men earn more even without factoring in choice.

 

Precisely. Ultimately it's the customers that set the wages, not the employers. Someone earns a salary based on their long-term earnings expectations for the company.

[david.molyneux]

Hi,

 

I think your article could be improved by adding some reason behind it and why do you think it could be useful. So that it has more of your personal view to frame the logical exercise presented here.

 

Also I would like to add that in my country, or in any western country, it is by law forbidden to pay different wage on base of sex. So difference is not in "wages", but in "earnings".

"A wage is monetary compensation (or remuneration, personnel expenses, labor) paid by an employer to an employee in exchange for work done. Payment may be calculated as a fixed amount for each task completed (a task wage or piece rate), or at an hourly or daily rate, or based on an easily measured quantity of work done."

 

On a "task completed" and/or "quantity" basis, men would earn more as they would be able to complete more physically demanding tasks in less time. This seems fairly obvious.

 

Fixed amount (say yearly) wages for a man and woman of average competence and physical size and strength (for their respective sex), both working construction or another equally physically demanding job, would not be "just", since the man will undoubtedly be capable of moving more material, operating hammers, shovels, picks, sledgehammers, etc. more effectively, maintaining a high level of effort for longer periods of time, and so on.

 

Paying them both based on "hours worked" would also favor the women unfairly, for the same reasons already outlined.

 

Therefore "wage equality" is a valid way to phrase this, outside of an office setting. Among those that are working in offices, the only factors resulting in "unfair" wages would be personal (e.g. laziness, work ethic, etc.) not systemic.

 

This is without even factoring in the overall effect of the bell curve of intelligence for men and women: do men earn more or less by virtue of dominating the extremes of intelligence (positive and negative); do women benefit overall by dominating the "average" and being under-represented on the extreme ends themselves? I'm not sure, but it would interesting to find out.

[Wuzzums]

That has everything to do with how much of a "draw" a fighter is, and therefore how much revenue they generate. R.R. being popular and generating interest (and by extension revenue) is not an argument against the idea that men earn more even without factoring in choice.

Yes. Except it is.

 

Some jobs are more suited for males, others for women, and others for either gender.

 

RR is a fighter.

She is a far less skilled/stronger fighter than a low tier male fighter.

RR earns a lot more for the same work, if not for less work because she's a woman.

 

If I snap my fingers and turn RR into a man will he then be earning the same amount of money?

 

If accountant A is a male and works X amount of hours, will he suffer a lowering in the paycheck if he's suddenly turned into a woman and still working X amount of hours?

[Worlok]

Yes, because R. Roussey still gets paid less than any other MMA male fighter.

 

MMA doesn't match women against men. Rhonda very likely gets paid far more than women she is against because she is superior in many ways. There are also fewer viewers of women's fights than men's fights. If Women's fights and Men's fights sold the same amount of tickets and were watched by equally as many people, Rhonda would most likely be one of the best paid fighters. 

 

To get a fair comparison, you would have to look at how many people buy tickets or watch each type of fight against how much the athletes are paid. For example, If 1/10 as many people watch women's fights as men's fights and Rhonda makes 1/5 as much as the best paid male athlete, she is actually being paid twice as much as her male counterpart for the same work. Anybody have published statistics on that?

[Mister Mister]

   Recently I was wondering about the wage gap, how it would look with a comprehensive analysis, factoring in all the money transferred from men to women by the State, as well as the men on the low end of the IQ Bell Curve who might not show up in the official "work force".  In other words, if you factor in taxes and welfare - with men tending to pay more than they get out of the system, and women vice versa - as well as the homeless and unemployed (mostly men), as well as the men in prison, as well as alimony and child support, if you wouldn't actually see women "earning" more in aggregate.

[Wuzzums]

Hmm, are you sure she's doing less work? I would imagine (although I haven't verified) that she's probably in the gym for just as many hours as the men. She gets paid per fight like they do too, right? I suppose she also earns a great deal from endorsements and photo shoots, which require a completely different skillset. (Are ya hating on celebrity endorsements and the modeling industry now too?) Just because she can't lift as much weight or throw a punch as hard doesn't mean she hasn't put in the effort. And that's why effort isn't the criterion. The criterion is the return for the businessowner/customer. Does it suck that she makes more because she looks pretty? I don't know. Does it suck that men are taller and stronger than women? There are ways to look at it that say it does suck, and other ways to look at it as not sucking. Depends on your perspective.

 

Accountant A and B would not necessarily be paid per hour either. They would be paid for their output. Number of tax returns, payroll processed, etc. For their value to the company. If you can provide value with less effort, isn't that a good thing?

Wage equality means equal pay for equal work. I never said anything about effort. Effort is not rewarded as much as skill. If an accountant has a higher output then his work is not equal to another even if it's within the same timeframe.

 

Men train harder than women because we have the body built for it. What is considered hard training for a woman is light for a man which is why there will never be mixed sports.

 

I'm not hating on RR. I'm pointing out that she's getting paid more because we value her work more BECAUSE she's a woman. Men fighting in a ring is nothing new. Women fighting in a ring is quite alluring. It's a clear example of sexism.

[david.molyneux]

Yes. Except it is.

 

Some jobs are more suited for males, others for women, and others for either gender.

 

RR is a fighter.

She is a far less skilled/stronger fighter than a low tier male fighter.

RR earns a lot more for the same work, if not for less work because she's a woman.

 

If I snap my fingers and turn RR into a man will he then be earning the same amount of money?

 

If accountant A is a male and works X amount of hours, will he suffer a lowering in the paycheck if he's suddenly turned into a woman and still working X amount of hours?

This is literally an example of "the exception proves the rule": her specific case is so extraordinary as to be worthy of note. Women are not "better suited" to be fighters, clearly, but she stands out and is popular by virtue of a combination of skill, charisma, etc. (largely diminished since her defeat).

 

Using her as an example of how the larger premise is invalid makes no sense to me. It would be like me saying that Neil Degrasse Tyson disproves the differences in average IQ disparity among races. I'm simply trying to point out a logical explanation for differences in the amount of money men and women earn, and to predict why that will always be the case. It sounds to me as though this upsets an ideology you ascribe to.