This makes a good point about women's wages on average being less than a man's being based on choices rather than a male-chauvenist conspiracy.
"No matter how hard women work, or whatever they achieve in terms of advancement in their own professions and degrees, they will not be compensated equitably!"
In other words, men so love their fellow men that they are willing to pay a premium of, say, $10,000 on what would otherwise be a $30,000-a-year job, just for the sheer pleasure of employing a man. Nonsense. It's market competition that sets wages.
While he makes an interesting point, in larger companies the people making decisions about hiring and promoting are not usually the same people who are concerned about the salary cost. And you could make an argument that men may tend to hire other men, and women tend to hire other women, and there are more men in power, so they keep more men in power, thereby paying that $10,000 premium without consciously doing so. But I think that argument is pretty hard to back up with anything beyond anecdotal evidence and gut feelings.
No comments:
Post a Comment