A Thought On Gender Pay Parity

By-and-large the pay inequality does not exist, or indeed we see that young women are starting to out-earn young men. Sure, in the upper echelons it is still mostly men--but then, a sizable number of women choose to stop working and become stay-at-home mothers; many who don't make the choice to take a job (or career) which will allow them to work closer to home: so it's not surprising that most of the "high-power" (and highly-paid) jobs are held by men. That's why legislation to address this so-called problem does more harm than good.

On the other hand, it turns out that many of the most prominent senators--including female senators--who are looking to pass such legislation actually pay their own male staffers more than their own female staffers. Of Particular irony:

Murray, who has repeatedly accused Republicans of waging a “war a women,” is one of the worst offenders. Female members of Murray’s staff made about $21,000 less per year than male staffers in 2011, a difference of 35.2 percent.

That is well above the 23 percent gap that Democrats claim exists between male and female workers nationwide. The figure is based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, and is technically accurate. However, as CNN’s Lisa Sylvester has reported, when factors such as area of employment, hours of work, and time in the workplace are taken into account, the gap shrinks to about 5 percent.

A significant “gender gap” exists in Feinstein’s office, where women also made about $21,000 less than men in 2011, but the percentage difference—41 percent—was even higher than Murray’s.

According to the report, 37/50 of the Senate Democrats pay their male staffers more than their female staffers. I've often held that the lawmakers ought to live with their own legislation before the rest of us do. This is a clear case in which they could and should do so, if they are so passionate about it. It is, after all, a relatively easy change for them to make.