The following article is featured today on the front page of The Huffington Post.
I battled Larry Kudlow on his show, CNBC’s The Kudlow Report, over the Paycheck Fairness Act. Larry thinks women are doing just fine. After all, a newly released Bureau of Labor Statistics report shows the gender pay gap closing. Women now earn, on average, 83% of the median weekly wage of men, the highest level in history. And young women (if childless) are actually outearning their male counterparts.
Therefore, Larry posits: let the free market rule. Women don’t need to get the government involved. I disagree. Let’s look at the story behind the numbers. Of course we do!
Here’s what I told Larry Kudlow: “It is morally imperative that a man and woman doing the same job should get the same pay.” A moral imperative which I believe extends across sex, race, religion and sexual orientation. But as I’ve dissected various studies, I’ve come to understand that the Paycheck Fairness Act, although a step in the right direction, will not get women to where we need to be.
Last week, the Senate reintroduced the Paycheck Fairness Act. Why now? After all, it’s been twenty months since the Paycheck Fairness Act, stewarded by then-Senator Hillary Clinton and Rep. Rosa DeLauro, cleared the House. Since then, the Senate has been content to do nothing. I believe women can thank the meteoric rise of the Republican women. Now the Democrats actually have to work to keep women’s votes. And what better way than the long overdue issue of equal pay for equal work.
But, time is of the essence. To get to the 60 votes needed in 2009 to pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (predecessor to the Paycheck Fairness Act) it took the combined forces of Democrats plus the Republican women senators. Before the anticipated seat shift in November, we all need to contact our senators right away and demand equal pay for equal work (here’s the Senate directory.)
And why? Because the most important modern day women’s issue is economic security. While poverty statistics are staggering (1 in 7 Americans now live below the poverty line), women continue to be disproportionately impacted. Women also compose the majority of foreclosures and bankruptcies. And women who are not economically secure are often forced to stay, along with their children, in abusive relationships.
The Paycheck Fairness Act will be a step in the right direction. While the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act effectively extended the window of time in which women can sue for pay discrimination, the Paycheck Fairness Act will help ensure that women get paid equally for doing the same job as men.
But equal pay for equal work is just a small part of the overall problem. A 2009 PayScale study found that on average, women make 94% of what men make for doing the same job (see data here). Women who make over $100,000 suffer a much larger pay disparity. But overall, as summarized by Catherine Rampell in an NYT article, there is no Machiavellian plot:
The implication is that in most jobs where a wage gap exists, it is probably not due to overt discrimination, with bosses deciding, Mad Men-style, that women should receive unequal pay for equal work. Rather, in most jobs, the different career choices that men and women make — or perhaps the different career opportunities men and women have available to them — account for big differences in pay.
When we get behind the numbers of these studies, here’s the real culprit: women do not have equal access to high paying jobs. This is the real root problem that we must address to ensure women’s economic security.
Part of the issue is that women have long gravitated to what some refer to as the Pink Ghetto: taking lower wage jobs in professions such as nursing and teaching. These jobs may have been secure during the current economic downturn, which accounts for the vast majority of the closing gender pay gap, but when boom times return, these will still be low paying jobs. Meanwhile, traditionally male jobs, such as construction, will return to being high paying when the economy picks up again.
I believe the biggest culprit of why the pink ghetto exists and thrives is this: women do not have a welcome place in high paying corporate fields. Take for example the field of finance: in the last decade 141,000 (-2.6%) women have left this high paying field, while 389,000 (9.6%) men have been added. As the recent Goldman Sachs discrimination lawsuit illustrates, many of the remaining women live in fear. No wonder women leave!
To get women true economic security, here’s what we need to do: we need to increase women’s representation in corporate management. And not just at the very top — or the “glass ceiling.” What we really must address is what my colleague Avivah Wittenberg-Cox describes in her recent book How Women Mean Business as “gender asbestos”: “In every company, the number of women relative to men drops at almost every management layer — almost from the very first one.”
Here’s what I told Larry Kudlow: I’ll give you your long-term “free market fix.” How? In the short to medium-term, corporations need to focus on diversity. Why? Because it’s simply good business, as study after study demonstrates. Women should have three seats on every board, and to borrow a notion from Congresswoman Maloney’s The 30 Percent Solution, women should hold 30% of management positions up the chain (currently, that number is closer to 15%).
Once we get there, we will have Larry’s free market solution. When we get women into positions of leadership, the rest will take care of itself — without requiring regulation or government interference. And the best news: our corporations will benefit and thrive from gender diversity!
Amy,
You made excellent, valid points; however, it was apparent that Kudlow was favoring “The Kitchen Cabinet” person by giving her more time and the last word.
You will have to expect this when advocating for women in the face of a culture, especially the media, that inherently will resist and find ways to marginalize your excellent arguments. The fact that pushing for 30% in both business and politics was somehow government intereference shows you just how difficult it’s going to be to get the men to recognize the moral imperative when we are only asking for helping in achieving 30%, although we are over half the population!
I would remind Mr. Kudlow that were the shoe on the other foot and men were in the same position as women are at this time, would HE and they be satisfied with 83 cents on the dollar for the same work and remind an interviewer like him that although men have held the lion’s share of job opportunities, they still scream bloody murder when they face an affirmative action situation where a minority business is recognized over them. They never seem to appreciate the moral imperative unless it affects them personally and in such a minor way in comparison to women and minorities.
In other words, I would anticipate always that most interviewers, with very few exeptions, will always state with authority that “women are doing just fine” rather than admit that men still have the advantage in business and women still have to work 3 times harder to get a small percentage of the higher positions that men feel entitled to with far less qualification. Do a “preemtive strike” so to speak in anticipation of this position by most men when it comes to parity in business between men and women.
Thanks for your thoughts Kathleen.
I’m grinning because a number of folks have had that reaction – that they teamed up on me (they did) – cut me off (they did). I appreciate you all having my back.
But I know Larry’s audience – I worked with them after all over decades. In that world, less is more. They heard what they needed to hear. This time. And you know me, I’ll keep talking!
I’ll be candid. When I made 75000 my male coworkers made 108,000, with no degree.
“When we get behind the numbers of these studies, here’s the real culprit: women do not have equal access to high paying jobs. This is the real root problem that we must address to ensure women’s economic security.”
Bingo, that’s it! The whole “equal pay for equal work” loses depth when we realize that women ARE often stuck in the pink ghetto and in many pink ghettos (teaching, social work, etc) your pay is regulated by years on the job, etc. So of course everyone in these fields get “equal pay”.
I worked in the pink ghetto for years. I loved my work as a teacher and I found it fulfilling. Benefits weren’t bad and I got paid more than other higher-status pink ghetto jobs such as being an editor at a publishing company.
I also thought that many of my female colleagues and myself would do well in administration. The interesting thing is, once you get to the administer/ management positions of the pink ghetto this is where you really start seeing the men! So I always thought it was fascinating that in fields predominantly made up of women, men still have the advantage in the upper level positions.
And why do women not get to the upper level? THIS is where the pay disparity is most striking! Ya know, I’m still a little bitter about watching TERRIBLE male teachers get promoted, time and time again, while great female teachers just kept plugging away at their jobs. How much have we all lost in income by not being promoted???
Kiuku makes a good point about the education factor. Women are still required to have five times the qualifications just to compete. You see it on TV, many of the male pundits, (Beck, Rush), are college drop outs, while the women all have advanced degrees, (Coulter, Malkin.)
and when we recognize this and GET more educated, it’s called a universe-shaking massive crisis in the educational system that BOYS AREN’T GETTING THE BEST GRADES ANYMORE AND WOMEN GET MORE DEGREES OH NOES!!!!
Fuck them. They outearn us without degrees. They can be LAZY AND STUPID and still get ahead is the problem.
“When we get behind the numbers of these studies, here’s the real culprit: women do not have equal access to high paying jobs. This is the real root problem that we must address to ensure women’s economic security.”
I will add another voice of agreement to this. I noticed a similar dynamic when I worked at a national lab. The women could be post-docs and research associates but they had to be superstars to be hired in tenure-track scientist positions while mediocre men got hired as scientists all the time. The problem is that the directors are all male and most of them have very sexist attitudes towards women. How do we break this vicious cycle? I think you make a good point about appealing to economic interests by pointing out that companies with better representation of women do better financially. How can we apply this to academia?
Perfectly said, Amy! You really nailed it with this analysis.
I wonder why there isn’t a mutual fund made up of companies that have a woman CEO and/or 30% women in management positions? This is another thing that NOW should have created in the last 20 years. I used to keep writing them letters about this sort of stuff because I could never find any place to E-mail them and after all I sent them money for years….but I never heard even one reply. I mean even a letter or E-mail saying “we received your letter with the helpful suggestions and are giving it the attention it deserves” would have been nice.
I also agree with Amy that the rise of Republican women is the only reason Dems are doing anything for women voters. You can tell that the Dems really, really resent that they will have to work for women’s votes. I like having several choices. I am a true Independent in that I think many of the programs that Liberals think up could be helpful ideas for society however I think that the government can’t be trusted and pretty much screws up every thing they touch and waste peoples money. Like this health care legislation, how many of you have gotten anything out of it at all? Last year my co-pay was $15.00, now it is $25.00. My daughter was very ill with Mono this summer and one day I payed $125.00 in copays. She is never sick and I am also paying nearly $400. per month for the family insurance and my employer is paying around $700. a month also. I would be better off self insuring with a medical savings account. One of my good friends who is 62 and lost her job and home in this recession had her insurance raised to $600. a month so she is now uninsured too. So after all the hoopla the health insurance bill is just more useless bureaucracy.
I fully support women making the same wage for the same work–as long as it goes both ways.
If they are doing the same job, have the same responsibilities, and men have the same freedoms women enjoy in the workplace, such as being able to wear shorts to work like women can, then they definitely should get paid the same.
In fact, this isn’t just about employers. It involves every aspect of American society. Women have proven that they are as good if not better warriors than men are, yet they don’t want anyone telling them that they MUST serve our country in a war, but they don’t have a problem with men being FORCED to fight for their country if they are drafted. Women should be as concerned that they are not required to register for Selective Service like men are at age 17.
Or take bars and clubs as an example. Men have to pay a cover charge. Women get in free. That is blatant discrimination. Men have stringent requirements on what they can wear. Women wear whatever they want.
How about the law? There isn’t anything a woman can do wrong, which is why there are no female criminals. Women expose themselves all the time, but nobody complains, and if someone does, the police ignore it or treat them gently. A woman just has to make a false accusation that doesn’t even make sense and the man will get the you know what beaten out of him and arrested and spend the weekend in jail and then have the judge set a bail so high he can’t pay it and then he will go to court ten times in chains until it is finally decided that he will go to trial only to finally find out that the woman made the whole thing up. And what happens to her? Nothing, of course.
Equality for all!
I love how economy, money, and capitalism only make sense to men when it’s their work, and not women’s.
It makes sense when it’s ours as well .. after they rip it off. Spinning, canning … all of that made them filthy rich when they stole it and turned it into capitalism, too.
“A woman just has to make a false accusation that doesn’t even make sense … ”
Poor baby. I bet you sympathize with that crazy asshole who had protection orders against his psycho ex-girlfriends as well. Menz iz oppwessed!
Arun Gavali I have videos of women getting brutally beaten and raped by police officers. Whatever you talk about is only happening in your imagination. You want to claim that the percentage of violent crime attributed to males is because females aren’t prosecuted, but you can’t prove that. You are clearly an example of “wah my privilege.”
I fought for my country. I -volunteered-.
Janis it’s some kind of male psychosis where they see things as unequal and uneven, that they feel entitled to the work of women, and truly don’t see it as stolen, and when something makes them uncomfortable..when a woman has to wear a skirt and can’t wear a suit, he sees oh no I can’t wear shorts to work.
CNBC is one of my favorite networks as I have been (unsuccessfully) attempted to invest in stocks. So I know who Kudlow is. I didn’t see the video, which I should have done before posting. Since I didn’t see it, I won’t comment, but I know Kudlow and I know the way he can be. I will watch it, but I haven’t seen it yet, so no comment about that video in particular.
And just to be clear, none of my comments were about that video. They were general comments.
However, I had just read the NY Times article, written by a woman, arguing that the discrepancy in pay isn’t because of discrimination and I admit I tend to agree with her based on my experience.
I was talking to a bunch of Hooter’s girls last weekend about things like this and I got a chance to ask a couple of them what a Hooter’s girl makes. On a “really good night–$300-$400″, “during a Grand Opening–$800-$1000″–a night. But nobody seems to mind that men are Unconstitutionally prohibited from serving at Hooter’s.
When I mentioned that Hooter’s is one of the biggest violators of the Constitution, one of the girls said, “Well, we aren’t discriminating, we allow men to work as cooks.” I said, “And if you wanted to be a cook and they said that you are not allowed because you have to be a man, would you put up with that?” She conceded defeat.
Engineering firms, like where I work, are required to hire unqualified women just because they have an engineering degree. The law forces employers to hire women no matter how useless they are as long as they have the most basic requirement (that is not to say that we don’t have incredible women who have recently been hired, just that there are some that are totally useless, but they had a degree). And we are forced to move women into management-type positions, even if they really don’t deserve it.
Women aren’t “forced” to wear skirts, they wear it because they want to. And makeup and high heals and perfume.
And you are all right–I am a “wuss”. If a man takes a swing at me, I just want to escape and have him arrested if possible. Anything else is just not wise. It just doesn’t accomplish anything. And it would be the same for a woman–she hits me, I have her arrested. Anything else is just not wise.
Speaking of fighting, I honor you for serving our country.
But at the same time, I was under the impression that women don’t actually “fight”. I can’t prove that either, but my brother was part of the Third Infantry Division, first to go into combat, and he was shocked that there were absolutely no women. Can’t prove any of that either. That was my understanding, though. You “can” fight, at your discretion, just like the draft, you aren’t “forced” to be signed up for the draft, but if there was a war and a draft, you could enlist, at your discretion.
Things have happened in this country that have been unjust, things that I had nothing to do with. Slavery occured in this country, but I am an Indian, born of parents who were born and raised in India. I had nothing to do with that.
Injustices have been commited against women, homosexuals, cross-dressers (I think I fall into that category), people of color, religion, you name it. We need to work to correct these injustices. But wanting to see things change doesn’t mean that I take responsibility for it occuring.
All I want to see is equality for all, not just some.
Couple of things.
Nothing can be “proven”–neither by me nor you.
I would love to see those videos of women being “brutally beaten and raped by police”. Is that in this country or elsewhere. I am referring strictly to this country in those comments. You can’t “prove” it either, but if you have evidence, I would like to see it.
You called this girl a “psycho ex-girlfriend”. She doesn’t sound pleasant even by your words. So what are you suggesting he does if he doesn’t get a police order against her? How does getting a protection order make him a “crazy asshole”? I don’t know the story, so I won’t make any assumptions. But these are your own words.
As a general note, making assumptions is very unwise.
Here’s another trustworthy statement: Government stats are totally useless. Do you know how this “Pay Gap” is calculated? Do you have enough evidence to “prove” it? I haven’t looked into it. But I do know that government stats are useless. I don’t want to assume, so I will ask if you know how this stat is derived.
Since I am a cross-dresser for “all intents and purposes”, I should just go ahead and get a sex change. No matter what, if I could do it all over again, taking with me the knowledge I have gained thus far, I would order my parents to get me a sex change as young as possible and I would be a stripper or a Hooter’s girl or something like that. Even now, I tell Hooter’s girls that they will someday look back and think to themselves that, after all the education, all the years, all the debts, even though the job is okay, they will realize that they made damn good money as a Hooter’s girl–certainly the best “bang for the buck”. Or stripper. Or anything capitalizing on female sexuality.
By the way, don’t be fooled. There is no “good job”. Every job becomes a job. Every job will wear on you. You will eventually hate any job out there. So the issue is getting a job as efficiently as possible. Capitalizing on female sexuality has got to be the most efficient way to make the most amount of money in the least amount of time.
Also, I watched the video. So some comments.
No surprises.
First, I don’t know if you caught Kudlow admitting that “woman are smarter” and that he is “house broken” or “trained” (meaning, he has relinquished all control of everything to his wife).
Kudlow is a Free-Market advocate. He doesn’t want government interference. He is for small government. So his comments were consistent with his viewpoint.
This is fast-paced television. You will get cut off, but at least not like Fox News Channel, where the opposing view won’t even get a single word.
CNBC is NOT a political network. Kudlow is the only one–taking on the likes of O’Reilly. Kudlow is actually pretty fair, but he is going to favor those who more closely align with his point of view. But at least he will let you speak.
So, Amy, you walked right into that with the “three women on a board of twelve” thing. You KNEW he would say that is government intervention and since you didn’t get a chance to explain it, Kudlow comes across as correct–that is government intervention! I bet you have a great rebuttle to that, but without it, I don’t see how that isn’t another governmental mandate.
You told him that he would like it because it is a “free-market solution”. So you weren’t caught off guard. You proposed a solution that was going to get hammered–understandably.
You have to be way better prepared than that.
Just my opinion.
But you did well. Your points are well-taken.
October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. There is pink everywhere–even on NFL football players!
Last month was Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. Did anyone even know about it?
Is it because Prostate Cancer is not as severe as Breast Cancer?
Well, let’s look at some stats.
From the “American Cancer Society”:
Chance of a woman getting breast cancer in her life-time: 12.5%
Chance of a woman dying from breast cancer in her life-time: 2.81%
Chance of a man getting prostate cancer in his life-time: 16.22%
Chance of a man dying from prostate cancer in his life-time: 2.79%
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/C.....rom-cancer
From the “National Cancer Institute” (www.cancer.gov):
“Estimated new cases and deaths from breast cancer in the United States in 2010:
New cases: 207,090 (female); 1,970 (male)
Deaths: 39,840 (female); 390 (male)”
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/breast
“Estimated new cases and deaths from prostate cancer in the United States in 2010:
New cases: 217,730
Deaths: 32,050″
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/prostate
Prostate Cancer is more serious than Breast Cancer because, although the death rates are both about 2.8%, the chance of a man getting prostate cancer is over 30% greater than the chance of a woman getting breast cancer.
Here’s a great article from http://www.associatedcontent.c.....html?cat=5
Only very recently have a few men begun to wonder why so much attention is paid to breast cancer research and awareness, but relatively little by comparison to prostate cancer. That breast cancer is a serious health issue is not in question. Over 40,000 American women succumb to the disease annually, and one in eight will contract breast cancer during her lifetime. Breast cancer is the third leading cause of death among women, behind heart disease and lung cancer, respectively. Still, the statistics for prostate cancer are sobering, with one in six men’s being affected –one in four for black men- and nearly 30,000 dying each year. When prostate cancer is in its early stages, there are virtually no symptoms. But the time, effort and money spent on fighting breast cancer versus fighting prostate cancer is anything but proportional.
Last year, the United States government spent $699 million for breast cancer research, compared to $390 million for prostate cancer. A more equitable disbursement might be $699 million and $468 million. The disparity is not solely economic, though. Commercials, public service announcements, news segments and magazine articles address the issue of breast cancer, but rarely touch upon health issues affecting men. Millions of cars’ bumpers sport pink ribbon decals, symbolizing breast cancer awareness. Since 1985, October has officially been Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Numerous national organizations such as the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation work tirelessly to ensure that breast cancer is at the forefront of medical research, and fundraisers such as their annual Race for the Cure, as well as countless other benefits on state and local levels, collect millions more in research dollars. Fundraisers and events for prostate cancer are rare, at best.
Part of the fault lies with men, who need to be more vocal about their health concerns. Men often don’t like to think about their health problems, let alone discuss them. But if more progress is to be made, men need to mobilize by not only finding out as much as they can about the disease, but calling or writing local and state representatives to request more funding. Also, a lot of men are reluctant to undergo the uncomfortable, somewhat emasculating DRE (digital rectal exam). But a DRE coupled with a PSA (Prostate Specific Antigen) blood test are very effective in detecting early stages of the disease. An annual exam is recommended for men over the age of 50, 40 for those men with a family history of prostate cancer.
There is hope on the prostate cancer front. In 2003, President Bush proclaimed September as National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month, and later that year, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, a prostate cancer survivor, became the spokesman for the National Prostate Cancer Coalition. Founded in 1996, the organization has lobbied lawmakers to increase funding for prostate cancer research, and oversees the Drive Against Prostate Cancer, which consists of mobile screening facilities that offer both a blood test and physical examination free of charge. According to NPCC, the 10-year survival rate is nearly 98% when the prostate cancer is detected early.
Arun – would you like to turn that into a blog post?
I am not entirely sure I know what a “blog” is (I think I get the jist of it), but it sounds great.
I realize that this comment is a bit off the topic of “Paycheck Fairness”, but it follows along the underlying issue of gender disparities.
And I am interested in knowledge and wisdom, so I would like to hear what others have to say about this topic as well as other issues on gender disparities.
Arun
a blog post is an article – click on the tab named “blog” and you’ll get a sense.
Yes, I see.
I would really like that.
I want to get the word out.
I think this world would be a much better place if people were more informed about both sides of the issues.
How do I do it? Or is it something that you will do?
send it to blog@thenewagenda.net