Your data is incorrect. Flat out. No matter how you collate it.
From the article you posted:
….women still only make 98 cents for every dollar earned by men.
Which agrees precisely with what I said. If there’s a wage gap, it’s a few percent, and way too small to be able to fix with a legislative solution.
As the above clearly points out, both outcomes and opportunities are unequal, both across genders and across ethnicities. Equal pay should mean and equal share of the proceeds, based on your contribution to the enterprise.
2%. I rest my case. What you’re going to find when you really dig into the numbers is that that 2% is localized to a few niche industries, and/or industries which are dominated by small-to-medium sized businesses. You look at major corporations…..equal pay.
The problem then becomes when women are paid less simply because of the misogynistic attitudes towards their work.
Interesting opinion. I don’t think you’ll find any data that links mysogeny to any of this.
When sports networks will only pay a fraction for the broadcast rights just because it’s women playing.
Different matter entirely. What a network will pay for broadcast rights is entirely tied to how much they can sell the advertising for, which is itself linked to the expected audience. If the audience for Roger Federer is projected to be 20% larger than for Serena Williams, then it is absolutely fair and just that they pay 20% less for the rights to broadcast Serena.
I think that sucks, because I personally would rather watch Serena any day of the week than Federer……but I understand it.
When female actors make a fraction of their male counterparts, while being a bigger box office draw.
There’s a good niche example, I agree.
When female CEOs make less, even when they outperform their male counterparts.
I am not aware of where this is happening. In the two mega-niches I am aware of, large tech and heath care, the women CEO packages yield the same as the men on equivalent performance.
BUT, THAT ALL SAID……I say again, 98%. Per your article. All you’re doing is pointing out the obvious niches, which I agree do occur. But 98% isn’t something you can address through legislation.
ou go from stating that virtually no one makes the minimum wage in the US, to saying that the minimum wage is why service sucks in America, and why business owners will put off capital improvements. You can’t have it both ways. If it is a tiny fraction of the employment base, it is a tiny fraction to business.
I’m not having it both ways — you’re misunderstanding my point, which was that IF certain businesses COULD hire at lower wages, they COULD (and in many cases WOULD) add low-paying jobs like service personnel. But the burdened cost of labor is too high for that.
There are two possible discussions that come from that. The first is if there should be any minimum wage at all. Half of Europe, IIRC, doesn’t have a minimum wage, and people seem to do just fine. The second is if there should be something called an “apprentice wage” that you could pay for certain types of jobs to certain types of employees, that’s below minimum wage, but would solve some of these service-sector tendencies to let customer service go to hell, while at the same time getting students (for example) some real experience for when they need to get a real job.
Point here is that the minimum wage can act as a barrier to employment. It’s not as simple as kicking it up a few bucks and everyone’s happy. Doesn’t work like that.
I’m more interested in what you think an imaginative response would be to the economic problem of automation.
Guaranteed Job Benefit. What school couldn’t use a dozen more teacher’s aids, what city a dozen more people fixing potholes, what hospital a few more orderlies, etc., but they can’t hire them because they lack funds to do so.
Take that same pot of money you’d use for the UBI and transfer it directly to government employers who are perennially short of labor due to tax ceilings, AND where more labor would improve the quality of life, education, health, etc. Set the wage at, oh, 75% of what the person WOULD make for that job if they had been able to get the job directly from the agency.
So, then, the GJB becomes an apprenticeship program for the real job. So, when Joe, who’se been filling potholes for the city for 50 years decides to retire, the city doesn’t have to go out and find somebody new; they hire one from the dozen or so GJB pothole fillers who have been working with Joe over the past few years. Whoever they hire is happy because he/she gets an immediate 25% bump in pay, and probably a better benefits package. All is good.