|
Numerous
theories and studies have tried to tease out why—
four decades after equal pay laws were enacted— the gap
between male and female earnings in the U.S. remains so intractable.
Many analysts have concluded that gendered patterns of labor force participation
account for women’s lower earnings— women, particularly
women with children, are more likely than men to take time out of
the paid workforce, more likely to work part-time, and may prefer
jobs with greater flexibility over those with higher pay. Yet even
studies controlling for these factors routinely find evidence of
a significant sex-based earnings gap.
A May 2004 analysis of
occupational and earnings data collected for the 2000 Census gets
into the gruesome details of disparities between men’s and
women’s earnings. By comparing the range of low, median and
high level earnings for men and women in over 500 specific occupations,
authors of the report found that with very few exceptions,
men make more money than women in the same occupations at
all points in the earnings spectrum— from 23 percent
more at the lower range of earnings (10th percentile) to 54 percent
more at the upper end of the pay scale (90th percentile). Overall,
the Census study found the median
earnings of women who worked year-round full-time in 1999 were
$28,000, just 74 percent of comparable men’s median earnings
($38,000). Women aged 35 to 54 had even lower earnings compared
to men in the same age group, with median earnings falling to only
71.4 percent of men’s.
The special report (Evidence
From Census 2000 About Earnings by Detailed Occupation for Men and
Women, by Daniel H. Weinberg for the U.S. Census Bureau) found
that in both occupations with the highest median earnings
for women and those in which women had the lowest median earnings,
men in the same occupations earned more at all levels of earning
distribution for every occupation except one (among the
lowest-paid occupations, both male and female "Dining room and
cafeteria attendants and bartender helpers" had median earnings
of $15,000 a year). Overall, there were only a handful of occupations
in which women’s median earnings were equal or nearly equal
to those of men (in addition to "Dining room and cafeteria attendants,"
these occupations include "Dietitians and nutritionists,"
"Meeting and convention planners," " Postal service clerks,"
"Postal service mail sorters and processors," and five occupations
falling into two occupational groups with very low percentages of
female workers: " Construction and extraction occupations" and "Installation, maintenance and repair occupations").
When earnings distributions
were analyzed to factor in the effects of age and educational attainment
on women’s earnings, the study found that women age 35 to
54 with some college education had higher median earnings than other
women in the same age group, but not by much (72.1 percent versus
71.4 percent). The starkest inequity occurred at the high
end of the earning spectrum for women age 35 to 54 with a bachelor’s
or advanced degree, who earned just 55 percent of comparable
men’s earnings. Quoted in an Associated Press story
covering the study’s release (by Genaro C. Armas, June 4,
2004), Institute for Women’s Policy Research president Heidi
Hartmann remarks that “women have narrowed the disparity [between
men’s and women’s earnings] over time in part because
more have college degrees or better.” Yet the Census Bureau
report found “education alone contributes little
toward equality between men’s and women’s median earnings.”
By combining earnings
data from the Census study with information
published by the Department of Labor Women’s Bureau, the
MMO created a summary
table showing low, median, high and average earnings for male
and female workers in the twenty leading occupations for women in
the U.S. (in 2002, roughly 40 percent of all full-time female workers
were employed in these combined occupations). For women, median
earnings in these occupations range from $15,000 to $42,000 per
year; for men, median earnings in the same occupations range from
$19,000 to $50,000 a year. The median earnings of women were at
least 90 to 95 percent of men’s in just two of the leading
occupations for women, "Registered nurses" and "Secondary
school teachers."
At the highest level
of earnings (90th percentile) in leading occupations for women,
the spread of women’s earnings ranged from $21,000 to $64,000;
women’s earnings at the 90th percentile were less than $45,000
in ten out of the twenty occupations. Men in the 90th percentile
in the same occupations earned between $31,000 and $130,000, and
earned less than $50,000 in only three occupations.
Four occupations identified
as leading occupations for women are among occupations with the
lowest median earnings for women— "Cashiers," "Cooks,"
"Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners," and "Waiters and Waitresses."
The special Census Bureau
report also compares “earnings dispersion”— the
distance in dollars from the lowest level of earnings to the highest
level of earnings within a given occupation— for male and female
workers. Earnings dispersions for female workers typically start
somewhat lower and end considerably lower— overall and within
occupations— compared to those of male workers. A higher ratio
of earnings dispersion indicates a wider range between the bottom
(10th percentile) and top earning brackets (90th percentile). For
example, an earnings dispersion ratio of 5.00 indicates that workers
in the 90th percentile earn five times as much as workers in the
10th percentile of earnings in a specified occupation. Overall,
men age 35 to 54 were found to have an earning dispersion ratio
of 4.90; the ratio for all women in the same age group was 4.20.
When the study controlled for the presence of children under 18
in the home, it was found that women age 35 to 54 with no
children had a narrower earnings spread (4.07) than women in the
same age group with children (4.29). This doesn’t
necessarily mean that mid-life women with children at home who work
full-time year-round earn more than their childless counterparts;
it simply means the spread of their earnings from lowest to highest
within an occupation is typically broader than that of similar women
with no children.
While mid-career men
(age 35 to 54) with college or graduate degrees had one of the broadest
earning dispersion ratios (5.24), women in the same age group with
the same educational qualifications had a narrower ratio: 3.70.
In other words, college educated, mid-life men employed in an occupation
with earnings of $20,000 at the 10th percentile could anticipate
earnings of $104, 800 if they entered the 90th percentile. For comparable
women workers in the same occupation with the same level of earnings
at the 10th percentile, the upper end of the earnings scale tops
out at just $74,000 (although since women’s earnings at the
10th percentile tend to be lower than those of men in almost every
occupation, women also earn proportionally less at the 90th percentile
of the earnings spectrum).
In an effort to avoid
stating what might seem obvious to the non-scientific observer (i.e.,
that such consistent patterns of higher earnings for men and lower
earnings for women in nearly every occupation— and at all
levels of earnings within occupations— suggests that women
are paid less because women’s work is considered less valuable
than men’s), researchers continue to scout around for logical
explanations for the variation in male and female earnings other
than outright sex discrimination. In addition to the argument that
women compromise their potential for higher earnings by favoring
family-friendly jobs or clocking out of paid work altogether for
a number of months or years, there is also the conjecture that men
may be more attracted to riskier employment situations or specialties
within an occupation that yield higher earnings (although it also
seems equally possible that employment situations and occupational
specialties with generally higher earnings may be biased toward
the inclusion of males).
The specialization theory
could account for some of the inequalities in men’s and women’s
earnings in occupations that require advanced education or training
and extensive on-the-job experience, such as "Chief executives" (men’s median earnings: $95,000/women’s: $60,000), "Physicians
and surgeons" (men’s median earnings: $140,000/women’s:
$88,000) or "Lawyers" (men’s median earnings: $90,000/women’s:
$66,000). But can it really explain why significant earnings
differences persist in low-paid, low-skilled occupations
like "Dishwashers" (men’s median earnings: $14,000/women’s:
$12,000), "Cashiers" (men’s median earnings: $21,000/women’s:
$15,000), "Counter attendants, food concession" (men’s
median earnings: $16,000/women’s: $13,000) and " Retail
salespersons" (men’s median earnings: $31,000/women’s:
$20,000)? The Census Bureau analysis ultimately finds “there
is a substantial gap in median earnings between men and women that
is unexplained, even after controlling for work experience (to the
extent it can be represented by age and the presence of children),
education and occupation.”
I’m not a hard-core
numbers person, but all this juicy data has me thinking. For example,
has it never occurred to anyone that mothers in high-powered professional
careers might be tempted to “opt out” because they aren’t
being paid as well as male colleagues with the same amount of education
and work experience? We’ve heard an awful lot about how mothers
earn less simply because they have different “preferences”
and “priorities” than fathers concerning the relative
importance of work and family. A
new study of the long-term earnings gap from the Institute for
Women’s Policy Research questions the real nature of women's
work-family “choices”:
“When women ‘choose’
to spend more time out of the labor market taking care of children
than their husbands do, how much of their choice is constrained
by lack of affordable, good quality alternative care, women’s
lower pay or inferior working conditions on the job, their expectations
that they won’t be promoted anyway, or social norms in their
kinship network, religious groups, or community?”
Is it time put forward
the wild notion that women earn less across the board because men
are less likely to adjust their employment patterns to accommodate
the necessary and normal responsibilities of life outside of paid
work? Or perhaps that men earn more because— subconsciously
or otherwise— employers still view them as primary or potential
primary wage-earners, while women’s earnings may be considered
supplemental to the male spouse’s wage?
There are undoubtedly
exceptional male workers and unexceptional female workers in every
occupation—needless to say, the reverse is also true—and
whatever remuneration these workers receive should fairly reflect
the quality of their work. But something smells very fishy when
men almost always earn more—especially at the upper and lower
ends of the scale—than comparable women who are doing the
same kind of job.
And just so you know,
in 1999 the median earnings of "Child care workers," "Teachers
assistants" and "Pre-school and kindergarten teachers"
were lower than those of "Service station" and "Parking
lot" attendants. Maybe it’s just me, but it seems like
something is seriously out of whack with a society that pays workers
more for taking care of cars than it does for teaching and taking
care of kids.
On a final note, while
I was running calculations comparing women’s median earnings
to men’s for the MMO summary tables, a figure that popped
up with surprising frequency was 66.6 percent. So maybe Satan is
to blame for the wage gap. Given uncertainties about attributing
women’s lower earnings to systemic gender bias, I suppose
that makes about as much sense as anything
else.
mmo : June 2004 |
