Since the middle of the twentieth century, there has been a revolution in the job market.
Women have entered the paid workforce in unprecedented numbers. In 1950, for example, only about one-third of working-age women were in the paid workforce; today, some 61 percent are.
There has also been an overwhelming change in the nature of paid work done by women. Fifty years ago, professional careers for women [31] (1. apropos 2. out 3. outside) of nursing or teaching were unusual. Today, women comprise nearly half of the newly minted attorneys and physicians starting work each year. Over the same fifty-year period, there has been a transformation of wages, too. In 1950, median earnings of women were only two-thirds those of men. Today, women earn 80 percent of what men are paid.
Reread that last sentence. On average, for every dollar a man earns, a woman gets paid 80 cents. Can this possibly be true? Consider this fact: Nearly 70 percent of employers’ costs are accounted for by labor. An employer who hired only women at 80 cents on the dollar could cut labor costs by 20 percent [32] (1. in spite of 2. relative to 3. similar to) an employer who hires only men. This would yield added profits of about 14 percent of sales―which would triple the profit earned by the typical firm. If women are paid 20 percent less than men, how could any employer possibly [33] (1. expect 2. afford 3. refuse) to hire anyone but women?
At this point you may be saying to yourself, “Surely, there are differences between men and women other than their sex that can help account for this gender gap in earnings.” And you would be correct. Earnings are a reflection of experience, education, marital status, and age.
But even when all of these variables have been controlled, nationwide data, such as from the U.S. Census Bureau or the Bureau of Labor Statistics, still show that unexplained differences between the pay of men and women persist. Men with the same measured individual characteristics are paid at least 10 percent more than women, and some studies find a difference twice [34] (1.. that 2. as 3. much) size.
The widespread opinion of many observers is that the unexplained gap between the pay of men and women is chiefly the result of discrimination against women. The reasoning is simple. Most business owners or senior managers are men, and [35] (1. over 2. for 3. given) a choice between hiring a man or a woman, the “old-boy network” operates in favor of the man. 4:4 According to this view, women can get the job only if they agree to accept lower wages.
Consider this fact, however: For more than forty years, it has been illegal to discriminate in the workforce on the basis of race or gender. As interpreted by the courts, the law now says that if the statistical appearance of lower wages for women or minorities is present in a workplace, the employer is presumed to be guilty of discrimination and must prove [36] (1. otherwise 2. it 3. so). No one thinks that federal agencies do a perfect job at enforcing the law here or elsewhere, but it is hard to believe that a persistent 20 percent pay difference could escape the notice of even the most [37] (1. oversight 2. farsighted 3. nearsighted) federal bureaucrat.
A hint of what might be going on begins to emerge when economists study the payroll records of individual firms, using actual employee information that is specific and detailed regarding location of the firm, type of work, employee responsibilities, and other factors. These analyses reveal that the so-called wage gap between men and women is much smaller―typically [38] (1. as much as 2. no more than 3. no less than) 5 percent―and often there is no gap at all. The sharp contrast between firm-level data and nationwide data suggests that something may be at work here besides outright gender discrimination.
That something is actually three things. First, women’s pay is extremely sensitive to whether or not they have children. In Britain, for example, where this issue has been studied intensively, the average pay earned by a woman begins to fall shortly before the birth of her first child and continues to drop until the child becomes a teenager. Although earnings begin to [39] (1. revive 2. accumulate 3. level off) once the first child passes the age of twenty or so, they never fully recover.The earnings drop associated with motherhood is close to one-third, and only one-third of that drop is regained after [40] (1.. the bottle 2. the container 3. the nest) is empty. American data suggest that the same pattern is present on [41] (1. the coverage 2. this side 3. the region) of the Atlantic.
The parenthood pay declines suffered by women stem from a variety of sources.
Some are [42] ( 1. put on 2. put out . put off) the “mommy track,” with reduced responsibilities and hours of work; others move to different employers around the time their first child is born, taking jobs that offer more flexible work schedules but offer [43] (1. characteristically 2. unduly 3. correspondingly) lower pay as well. Overall, a woman with average skills who has a child at age twenty-four can expect to receive nearly $1 million less compensation over her career, [44] (1. as 2. compared to 3. over) one who remains childless. It is worth emphasizing that no similar effect is observed with men. In fact, there is some evidence that men with children are actually paid more than men without children. These findings strongly suggest a fact that will [45] (1. consider 2. show 3. come) as no surprise to most people: Despite the widespread entry of women into the labor force, they retain the primary responsibility for child care at home, and their careers suffer as a result.
The second factor at work in explaining male-female wage differences is occupational selection.
Compared to women, men tend to be concentrated in paid employment that is dangerous or unpleasant. Commercial fishing, construction, law enforcement, firefighting, truck driving, and mining, to name but a few, are occupations that are much more dangerous than average and are dominated by men. As a result, men represent 92 percent of all occupational deaths.Hazardous jobs offer what is known as a compensating differential, extra pay for [46] (1. avoiding 2. assuming 3. allowing) the differential risk of death or injury on the job. In equilibrium, these extra wages do no more than offset the extra hazards. So even though measured earnings look high relative to the educational and other requirements of the jobs, appearances are deceiving. After [47] (1. adjusting for 2. minimizing 3. dealing with) risk, the value of that pay is really no greater than for less hazardous employment―but the appearance of higher pay contributes to the measured gender gap.
The third key factor influencing pay is hours of work. Men are more than twice as likely as women to work in excess of fifty hours a week in paid employment. Overall, the average paid workweek for men is about 15 percent longer than it is for women. Men are also more likely than women to be in full-time, rather than part-time, paid employment, and the wage differences here can be huge. Working an average of forty-four hours per week versus thirty-four hours per week, for example, yields more than twice the pay, [48] (1. sensitive to 2. considering 3. regardless of) gender. This substantial gender gap in hours of paid work is due in part to the “mommy track” phenomenon, but the question that remains is, does this constitute discrimination on the part of employers, or is it the result of choices by women?
Although we cannot answer that question definitively, there is reason to believe that some differences in occupational choice are due to discrimination. For example, the highest-paying blue-collar jobs are typically union jobs, and industrial and crafts unions have had a long history of opposition to women as members. Or consider medicine. Women are becoming much more numerous in specialties such as dermatology and radiology, where schedules tend to be more flexible, hours of work can be limited, and part-time practice is feasible. But many physicians would argue that the noticeable underrepresentation of women in the high-paying surgical specialties is partly the result of discrimination against women, [49] (1. thus 2. rather than 3. when) reflecting the occupational choices preferred by women. If this argument is correct, then even if women in a given specialty are paid the same as men in that specialty, the exclusion of women from high-paying slots will lower their average wages and make them worse off.
The extent of gender discrimination in the workplace is [50] (1. assumed 2. inclined 3. unlikely) to be definitively settled anytime soon. Measured earnings differences, even those that account for experience, education, and other factors, clearly overstate the true pay gap between equally qualified men and women. Just as surely, however, given the heavier parenting demands typically made on women, even when they receive equal pay, it is not for equal work.
コメントを残す