Questioning the Wage Gap

I would simply note that most men spell Gerry with a J. Dude, you just left $20k/year on the floor because you had to spell your name like one of the Spice Girls!

:)

The issue isn't the wage gap, it is the wealth gap between men and women. The wage gap istelf doesn't really exist between men and childless women according to statistics. It emerges when women have kids because per child men's salaries rise while women's fall, thus creating a gap. In other words a more accurate representation of the issue would be the comparing of women versus working moms rather than between genders.

Even if a woman's pay begins higher than a man's, as she had kids she faces the gaps of gender bias, credit report, credibility, education, resume gaps, a leadership gap and retirement gap. The convergence of these gaps on women is why women are less wealthy than men and also why men are still the largest component of leadership in almost every industry with the exception of businesses by women that sell to other women or their kids.

Think wealth, not wage.

Gender equity is real in some fields, not in others. I happen to work in a profession which is dominated by women, but in which gender equity is conspicuously absent -- the top jobs are overwhelmingly held by men, and men earn more than women even when factors such as years of experience, consecutive years in one job, number of direct reports, etc are taken into account.

In fairness, I have to admit that I personally have never felt discriminated against because I'm a woman. But knowing the stats from the annual salary survey in my field, I have to wonder how much more I might be earning if my plumbing were arranged differently.

Rachel Bondi confirmed my suspicions. "The wage gap itself," she writes, "doesn't really exist between men and childless women according to statistics."

Wow. That's an article pitch if I've ever heard one. Yet when I visited Bondi's site, EarningPower.org, I found not that statement but the same old stat she claims "doesn't really exist."

See it? On the home page under the headline "The Statistics Are Alarming":

"Wages for women have actually declined from 78 to 76 cents to each dollar men earn this year over last. Men earn 20-25% more annually."

But there is some hint of truth to women earning less, one that's actually believable. "The wage gap," Bondi writes, "emerges when women have kids because per child men's salaries rise while women's fall, thus creating a gap. In other words a more accurate representation of the issue"--which I assume means a truthful one--"would be the comparing of women [without children] versus working moms rather than between genders."

Why is that more nuanced explanation missing from her site--and from every other discussion of this issue? Why not say the truth: women with children are earning less money than women without children? And has Bondi's group or any other actually examined the salaries of women with and without children working in the same field at the same jobs?

There are many reasons why--stand by for a qualifier--in general a working mom's salary would not increase as much as a childless woman's. Again, I'll let my own story explain it, even though, despite the odd spelling of name, I am not a Spice Girl.

After my first daughter was born I availed myself of the Family and Medical Leave Act and hunkered down at home for 12 weeks. When I returned to work it was at a reduced schedule of 4 days a week. (My wife returned to her job at 3 days a week.) Once back I instituted a late-night rotation so I did not have to work as much overtime as I had pre-child. I also stopped coming in early and working as many weekends. It was obvious to everyone--including the company big wigs--that I was not the same worker I was before my little tax deduction came along. I decided to put my family first and my job second, and it showed. Sound familiar to any working moms?

Was I punished because of this attitude shift? Maybe, maybe not. I do know that my company's president asked his counsel if he definitely had to let me take "paternity leave" (he did). I do know that for the next 4 years all of my raises were below the cost of living increase when before they were all above it, and during my first year back I was not given a bonus even though every other department head got one.

But I didn't care then and still don't. I'm working 3 days a week now and am happy I have chosen to work less and be home more--even if it means I make less money. I still got the better end of the deal.

But if my company did purposefully give me lean raises because in its eyes I was not working as much as those around me, could you blame them? Before child I used to routinely work 50 hours a week; after child I routinely stopped at 35 or 40. Why would they keep throwing money at me?

I don't have a good answer to that one.

Gerry-

You're confusing two issues. The wage gap exists both between men and women (moms and non-moms combined), AND also exists between childless women and mothers. Both statistics are true.

It is all over my site www.earningpower.org and specifically articles exist on my blog and in the Orange County Register newspaper. It is also in my upcoming book The Wealth Gap: Bridging the Eight Gaps to Women's Wealth.

I'm sorry you misinterpreted. I never claim the old stat of a gap between men and women doesn't exist. That is a mistake of Warren Farrell followers.

The gap between men and women emerges because we average in both mothers and non-mothers. But my site is all about men who wish to empower women, moms or not, to close the leadership and wage gaps.