I was listening to one of my favorite talk radio show hosts yesterday on XM radio – Larry Elder. Since anyone who is heavily bent to either side of the political dial will probably know who that is, I may have just lost 50% of my audience, that’s OK. The 50% who stay around to read may find that they learn something, if they keep an open mind.
You see, Larry was discussing a new study that had just come out (and he compared it with an older study) about the disparity in pay between men and women. Of course the study was backed by scientific method and statistical analysis. I’ve always believed the old saying that there are lies, damned lies, then statistics. This report reminded me of that fact.
It is easy, if you are prone to victimhood, to get exercised when some study from a prestigious sounding group announces that your "group" is getting the shaft. I imagine that is how a lot of women who first heard the news that they were only making 80% of the pay that men make felt. They were more than likely whipped up into a frenzy of anger because they weren’t being treated fairly.
I’m all for fair treatment, and in my recruiting practice, we don’t discriminate in anyway (other than skill set and experience) in our recruiting process. Men and women are treated equally, and paid equally for the same work with the same background and experience level. Because we live in a free market economy (well mostly free market, I lament the amount of government interference that we have now, but that is a topic for another time) it is impossible for the study to be correct.
As Mr. Elder points out, one needn’t refute the methodology, which is obviously flawed. There is no need to point out that there are sufficient justification to pay people differently based upon background, education, skill set, and accomplishment, that one could not possibly pin the pay differences between men and women solely on their gender. Mr. Elder has a much easier theorem that doesn’t involve knowing sample size, statistics, or sampling methodology. We just use simple logic of economic theory.
Here is how to easily disprove the irresponsible statement that women are only paid $.80 on the dollar compared to men. If you were a business owner, and women could be paid at only 80% the level of men, wouldn’t a business, one that was "for profit," stop hiring men and hire only women, thereby saving 20% of its labor costs? Of course it would, but that doesn’t happen. And it doesn’t happen because it isn’t real. Are there different salaries for workers based on what they know, what their education is, what they have accomplished in the work place, how long they have continuously worked, the skills that they bring to the job – absolutely. Are any of those things based upon gender, not really. Sometimes women choose to leave the workforce to raise a family, but sometimes men do as well. Those people will suffer a pay gap as compared with someone continuously in the workforce since leaving school.
So next time you are confronted with outrageously exaggerated "findings" of a study, use some common sense to filter what the ‘authors’ are telling you. No doubt if you utilize this methodology, you can save yourself some time trying to prove every instance where the authors have skewed the result.
-author: Carl Chapman. Carl is the founder of CEC Search – Executive Restaurant Recruiters. He has 20+ years of restaurant industry experience, spent 5 awarding winning years as an executive recruiter with a top 25 MRI
franchise office. Carl graduated from the US Naval Academy in 1980. You can find Carl’s bio on his blog "Confessions of an Executive Restaurant Recruiter" you can also review his LinkedIn profile at http://www.linkedin.com/in/carlchapman
It’s nice to hear that you don’t discriminate. Too bad my Fortune 50 employer doesn’t do the same. I was hired at the same time as 2 men through the same headhunter/recruiter. I have more experience than one of the men and more education than both of the men, but I am only paid 80% of what the men receive. Why would my male co-workers tell me this? Because it proves they are better than me (yes, they really said this). Management confirmed the pay disparity but has otherwise said and done nothing, other than look very unconformtable.
Sexist discrimination is alive and kicking.
There are many factors that go into figuring what a person’s value in the work place is. You mentioned that there are two men paid more than you, but you have more experience than only one of them… the other has more than you then, correct? Then why is the fact that he is being paid more than you discriminatory? It isn’t… and I’d bet that the other person making more isn’t either.
You see of those two men, one has more experience than the other, but if they are close in pay, is one being discriminated against? On what basis?
If I negotiate a better package than you do, regardless of our sex, does that mean that you are discriminated against or just not as skilled as a negotiator?
Given that you “know” the salaries of your male co-workers, if you feel discriminated against, there are several options for you:
1) You can demand equal pay (I don’t recommend this tact)
2) You can ask for a raise (if you are living up to you potential, your lose would be damaging to your employer so they would probably agree)
3) You can look elsewhere, and hopefully get more money.
My view, well I’ve been paid less than people that I blew away in performance, but because I don’t wear an easily identifiable ‘discrimination’ label on my chest, I don’t get to play that card. So, I either prove my worth and am rewarded where I am, or I find another company that will pay me what I am worth.
Frankly, I know many school teachers (male and female) that are worth many times the annual salary of Alex Rodriguez… but I don’t think that he is paid more because he is a male.
Even the studies themselves list details that don’t make it into the headlines. Such as women go into lower paying careers (a la your Alex Rodriguez vs. teachers comments above). And women take more part-time jobs (voluntarily) than men.
If the feminists are correct, then testosterone is the key to aggression. And the bald truth is less aggressive people don’t negotiate as hard or ask for as many raises.
And, as every salesman…er…person knows, if you don’t ask, you don’t get.
Dan
Dan, you are exactly correct. People overlook the most obvious reasons for difference when they are trying to play the “victim.” Thanks for participating!
20% less? I hope it is true and someone calls me tomorrow to rectify the discrepancy.
Are you guys serious? I’m in no way a “feminist”, or consider myself a “victim”, but I can tell you from experience that at a previous job I had a lower salary than males that were less educated than me (I have an MBA – some had college degrees; others a high school diploma.) If you are wondering I am now in a 100% commission based job & love the fact that I am more successful than the majority of males at the office. Maybe I should have been more aggressive earlier in my career to push for salary increases etc. even after repeated attempts, but trust me it’s a mans world. I believe there is still the stereotypical thought process that women will most likely not be able to work as hard, or will quit, once they reach the childbearing time frame of their lives. (In actuality woman have a fantastic ability to multi task & accomplish goals with greater efficiency after childbirth). Look at most of the upper echelon CEOs etc. and tell me if the majority are male, or female. Dig a little deeper & you will see that the men are paid higher than their female counterparts & that’s not just a statistic – it’s a fact.
Anecdotal evidence aside, if you read the original post, logically, you will understand how it is impossible for men to be paid more.
BTW, I find it interesting that you would say this “love the fact that I am more successful than the majority of males at the office.”
I think that may be an ‘issue’ worth exploring, perhaps in counseling….