THE WAGE GAP MYTH, PART 2: 
How do I fix this thing which may not even be broken?

A lot of this is going to come down to baby-making and role-modeling, and is going to make some females unhappy. Remember, I'm just trying to pick truth from off the bones of "common wisdom" (which is usually one or the other, but not both). It's important (to me) that you understand I'm pro-labor, pro-equality, and heavily anti-{whatever the worst of corporate America is doing at any given time}. I'm pro-regulation where it makes sense (which is an awful lot of places), probably moreso than you are. So when you read something here you don't like, please bear in mind that I'm not agitating in favor of a wage gap, or that I'd be happy doing nothing in the face of injustice, but it's important (to all of us) that we expend our political energies where they will do something positive (e.g. legislate the climate, not the weather), and I'm trying to bring facts and reason to what is typically a pretty shrill and uninformed debate. There are, no doubt, specific cases where one person's crappy situation bucks these overall trends, and while I realize this conversation could look like kicking that person when they are down, the plural of anecdote is not data.

Note that absent from this entire conversation is anything about women being poor negotiators, failing to "lean in," or other gender-based "sociological" issues ... there just isn't the data to support these claims, and the gap can easily be explained without them. 
"The researchers assign minimal importance to theories suggesting that psychological factors such as the notion that men are bigger risk takers, or that women are more averse to tense negotiations have all that much to do with the ... gap." 


Anywho, here are some approaches if you want to close the unadjusted wage gap (i.e. pay for ALL women's jobs vs. ALL men's jobs), or eliminate the debatable few cent gap that *might* remain in adjusted wages.


#1: Do nothing

SOME of you may already be living in the Best of All Possible Worlds. It's possible that even if a true gap exists, it's there for good reasons, and the trade-offs are ones that you should be happy with as a woman.

It's very possible that women have intrinsically (even genetically) different career and life preferences. It could be that they are trading off income for other benefits, as previously discussed. For example, my experience in the non-profit world is that 37.5 hours is a long work week, that the demands of the job are lower than private sector, that the work is more rewarding ... and that it's work largely done by generally happy females ... and it pays far less than the private sector. Nurturing jobs may not pay as much because they often require little education, but if you like that work and *still* you'd prefer a job you don't enjoy just because it pays more money, I'd say you (not society) has some issues to work through.

For what it's worth, I'm with the opted-out women here ... I long ago decided that trying to race the over-ambitious to the top of an ever-narrowing pyramid was just not worth it. I work at home for a sharp reduction in earnings potential. Yes, I would like to make more money without having to put in 60 hour weeks. No, I don't feel that anyone owes that to me, and I'm very happy with the bed I've made and am currently lying in.


#1a: enjoy the health benefits and extra years afforded by the status quo

According to this:
    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/aug/19/men-breadwinners-health-effects-wellbeing
...as men take on a greater share of economic responsibility in their marriage, they reported greater strains on their wellbeing and health. In years where men in question were their family’s sole breadwinner, their psychological and health outcomes were at their worst.
For women, taking on a greater financial responsibility in their marriages had positive effects on happiness and wellbeing. “Women ... may approach breadwinning as an opportunity or choice. Breadwinning women may feel a sense of pride, without worrying what others will say if they can’t or don’t maintain it. After all, they have accomplished something rare for their gender,” the study says, about women who are their family’s primary breadwinner. “Should they fail to maintain this status, however, they have less to lose than men in the same position, based on social expectations."

This stress of responsibility and the lack of an "opt out" is literally shaving years off mens' lives in the form of poorer health. This is also likely reflected in the uneven suicide stats by gender and the life expectancy gap (currently at least 5 years, and as much as 8).

What has been demonstrated, sociolically, is that men are still considered failures should they be unsuccessfully relied on to support their family, whereas should women end up hating their job, it is completely acceptable to "drop out" and become mothers (or kept women, or mothers-with-nannies, which is the job I want).  These are expectations that the majority of people -- including women -- place on gender roles in this country, and that's something that you just can't legislate away.


#1b: raise kids in one-earner families, and enjoy the alternative to rat-racing

If parenthood makes women want to nurture instead of career climb while making men want to double down to provide for their families, a gap is inevitable, but an opportunity is there as well.

I'd love the additional *option* of staying home, doing something I loved, and not facing societal approbation for it. This would be the flip side of women not having the option of bayonetting civilians for a living, and one that many people would be happy with (and, if a lot of women choose this route -- and they do -- in lieu of working in their prime income years ... well, that alone should explain a huge unadjusted wage gap to anyone who remains unconvinced).

As a child of two working parents, I can tell you that there are benefits to a traditional family, and the traditional roles may have evolved for reasons other than patriarchy.


#1c: feminize the workforce

I was hoping that when women entered the workforce at the managerial level, it would reshape buesinss ... instead it's the women (think Meg, Carly, Marissa) that get reshaped. If you don't like what it takes to get ahead (which is almost the opposite of what's involved in getting a degree, where women are currently "in the lead"), then don't try to get ahead, at least not by using the current ruleset. Some prices may not be worth paying. And when you do get into a position of responsibility, don't continue to turn the workplace into a sterile, emotion-free environment, but do promote solely on merit (not on those traits like bullying and backstabbing that some might associate with males). In the short-term, this will lead to lower pay, because the highest pay goes to those who are willing to do anything to get ahead, but it will make your job suck less, will provide better lives for your subordinates, and may even transform the workplace into something that doesn't seem like the worst parts of a high school locker room, and which may be an environment more amenable to womens' strong suits.


#1d: Wait it out

The wage gap is largest for older women; but when you look at those stats, you aren't looking at a women in her 30's compared to what she'll make in her 60's ... you're looking at a women who entered the work force 10 years ago (with comparable-to-males educational opportunities) with one who entered 40 years ago (when the workplace was far more discriminatory and female college educations much less common), or maybe one who entered 20 years ago after raising kids for a decade or two (a noble cause, but not experience that trains you for much more than daycare work). Birth rates are falling here as they are in all industrial countries, graduation rates are rising for women, manual labor (where I *would* expect men to have an advantage careerwise) is becoming less of a career path as technology improves, and societal assumptions continue to shift. Although there are headwinds to closing the unadjusted gap, things should continue to improve if you do nothing more than sit on your ass.

Then, if you still want something to be upset about, it should be the disparity in earnings for women of different races, adjusted for education. Those durned Asian-Americans get all the breaks.


#2: Run with it

As with any generalization (e.g. income for ALL folks in a gender), there are certainly exceptions. If your sole goal is to out-earn your male counterparts, here are some industries you can choose from. From one study (numbers represent how much all women make on average for each $1 made by males):

1. Social worker - $1.08
2. Merchandiser - $1.08
3. Research assistant - $1.07
4. Purchasing specialist - $1.06
5. Physician advisor - $1.02
6. Communications associate - $1.02
7. Social media - $1.02
8. Health educator - $1.01
9. Procurement - $1.01
10. Business coordinators and therapists - $1.01

I'd argue that anything under 5% is basically noise, when you consider how many factors are involved in "earnings," never mind the perceived inequalities between two sets of very different people, but some other fields worth considering, from a separate study:

HR (which is largely populated by women): $1.01
Elementary school teacher: $1.01
RN: $1.02
Software developer: $1.04


Also, female part-time workers are now out-earning their male counterparts on an hourly basis. Granted, some of those jobs suck, and this isn't for everyone, but the *option* to make a decent living working part time is a good thing, and some of those jobs like bartending and waitressing do have potentially professional career tracks (think 5-star hotel bar and Michelin Star dining), can pay very well, and are generally tax-reduced (I suspect at least a fraction of the wage gap comes from *reported* wages, with women working for tips more than men, keeping a higher percentage of their pre-tax income, and appearing to net less than reality).



#3: Work it!

If you accept societal gender roles, there are additional opportunities for you ... every thing from having your lifestyle subsidized by your date to being a kept woman to working a job where you will get paid well just for being a woman. Again, and I'm sorry I know I have to keep saying this, I'm not implying these would be good options if they were your only options, just that options, particularly for a group as diverse as "all women," are definitely a good thing.

As a former bartender in a bar full of male patrons, I can tell you there are industries with a "reverse wage gap" wherein pay goes up if you have lady bits. And there are certainly plenty of sales jobs -- particularly in the pharma and medical devices field -- where your qualifications for a 6-figure job are basically a rack, literacy, and a willingness to bat an eyelash. Or ... strippers! I played soccer with a woman who put herself through a very, very pricey law school working at the "Pink Poodle." Again, maybe not for you, but if I could have made more than minimum wage at 20, I probably would have G-stringed-up.

Societal presumptions are also unequal in ways that would make some women happy (and others sad). For example, women are still generally awarded custody in divorce cases, where women also receive alimony and child support. Family support is a drain on the NET earnings of males but is not factored into the wages for females, which coupled with societal expectations about who picks up the dinner tab and buys the jewelry would leave me to believe that the net (not gross) all-income-after-expenses gap goes the other way. I understand some women pay alimony, that there is nothing wrong with women collecting alimony, and I'm not dissing women who gave up school and career to be home makers. But if our goal is to try to get our brains to look past the first "obvious" conclusions, then considering a "disposable income gap" might be a good first step for anyone unconvinced about the absence (or paucity) of the adjusted wage gap.


On the other hand, if you do NOT like the gender roles that society has doled out, yet you still let a man hold the door for you, pick up the check, or buy you a summer home, you may be a part of the problem to the extent that you are reinforcing those gender roles. Equality means just that -- with no differences -- so if you're actually looking for "fair but unequal" then you just have to accept some trade offs and unintended consequences in any bargain. Asking for equality in areas where you are at a (percieved?) disadvantage while not throwing away the benefits of the same deal would make you sound like today's white, wealthy, hetero, Christian male who is chronically complaining about being a persecuted class. Sometimes, if you want to keep the baby, it's only fair to keep the bathwater.

Having used this many words just to annoy a bunch of people, I think I will draw the curtain here for now, and present Act III next week.