If one more person points to Meg Whitman or Arianna Huffington as proof of women's earning power, I'm going to scream. That's like saying Tiger Woods and Will Smith are slam-dunk proof that black Americans have broken into the ranks of the über-rich.
Which brings us to National Equal Pay Day. I can't believe we're having another one. I still have my little green button from 1970 -- with "59¢" emblazoned on it -- tacked to my bulletin board. I remember how we all wore that button on our t-shirts as we marched to protest the gender pay disparity of that time. Now we're at 77 cents.
Forty years and 18 cents. A dozen eggs has gone up 10 times that amount.
There are people who undermine the pay gap by citing the women who make 98 cents on every dollar a man makes. But this is an elite group. According to the National Women's Law Center, the vast majority of American women -- working "full-time, year-round" -- are still stuck in that shameful 77-cent zone. The gap, says the National Women's Law Center, translates into "$10,622 less per year in female median earnings." Those are real dollars that could cover real expenses -- like food and school and clothes and health care and childcare.
Many companies try to disguise the inequity. Take the infamous Wal-Mart sex discrimination case, in which it was revealed that female workers at Wal-Mart earned about 5 percent less than men doing similar jobs between 1996 and 2001. Defenders of Wal-Mart might tell you that the discrepancy is practically negligible -- that, in fact, hourly-waged men make only 37 cents an hour more than the women.
But climb a little further up that corporate ladder -- to the career jobs -- and it's impossible to disguise the inequity. At the senior vice president level at Wal-Mart, says the report, the average pay for a man is $419,435 a year. And for women? Just $279,772. That's $150,000 a gap -- too many numerals for my little green button.
There are those who will dismiss this disparity and ask us women to congratulate ourselves for moving up the corporate food chain. That's the ol' you've-come-a-long-way-baby kind of thinking. It's too late for that. Today, as we mark another Equal Pay Day (or as some of us call it, Unequal Pay Day), we can't celebrate a mere 17-cent gain made over four decades.
So what do we do? We've worn the buttons, we've done the marches, we've lobbied. Now what?
Now we do what we Americans must always do: speak up and be heard. Thankfully, our voices are being carried by Senators Barbara Mikulski and Rosa L. DeLauro, who today will reintroduce on the floor of the U.S Senate the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would, among other things:
"Women and men everywhere should call their Congress representatives and urge them to support this bill," Judy Lichtman, a senior adviser at the National Partnership for Women and Families, told me on the phone. "That would be the most powerful way to celebrate Equal Pay Day."
I think that's a great idea. So let's do it. I don't want to have to take my little green button off my bulletin board again.
Visit Marlo on her website on AOL. You can also connect with her on Twitter -- @MarloThomas -- and Facebook.
Follow Marlo Thomas on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MarloThomas
Marlo Thomas: Red, White and Blue... and Many Other Colors
Marlo Thomas: Men Behaving Badly... It's a Good Thing
Debbie Hines: When Will Employers Stop Treating Women Like Second Class Citizens?
You cannot simply say that women with masters make less than men if you don't control for industry as for instance a masters in education pays far less than a masters in electrical engineering. A masters or PHD in social work pays far less than a masters in finance.
Comparing VP positions at Wal Mart is also worthless unless you compare education, years of experience and the position held. A VP of HR likely earns less than a VP of product development. A VP with 30 years experience likely earns less than one with 10. VP's willing to relocate to foreign soil likely earn more than those not willing to.
I haven't seen any studies to date that control for all relevant variables on which a definitive judgment can be based.
You are either repeating sheer right wing misogynistic BS or you are horribly ignorant. I suspect I know which it is.
Case in point "Now we're at 77 cents."
This is a comparison of every man and every woman in the US regardless of age, education, hours worked, industry etc. etc. etc. How do I know? First of all most all sites will tell you, our you can calculate and get the number yourself. Just divide the average female salary by the average male salary. 77%. Such a broad statistic without being controlled for age/education/hours/industry is absolutely meaningless.
I agree that women take home less income per year on average when compared to men. But take home pay and "pay equality" are two entirely different things. A doctor makes more than a janitor but I wouldn't call that pay in-equality as they are providing vastly different services with vastly different utility to society.
Companies will not just pay you more because you "think" you deserve it. You actually have to ask for it. Otherwise they will pay you the least amount they can to keep you on board and performing.
Is there no value to American corporations in women caring for their children?
If you seek excuses to explain discrimination and bigotry you will surely find many. They have been used for centuries and will continue to be proffered as long as ignorance, arrogance and stupidity are ubiquitous in this society.
***Show me a study that a specific company pays men and women with equal qualifications different amounts of starting salary and you have yourself a fully legitimate lawsuit. Like I said, my own theory is that women are not forceful enough in asking for raises/starting salaries. I was able to obtain a 100K+ increase in salary by simply asking for more money and holding out. My girlfriend on the other hand who has a better education than I and an equally good resume took the FIRST offer put in front of her, I came to find out she has done this at every job she has had since leaving school 5 years ago. After being passed up for a promotion she thought that was that and she had to live with it. I convinced her to demand more pay and the promotion. After a few weeks of tense negotiations with her boss she was able to get a 40K raise and the promotion. Just like being respected I believe that you are treated the way you allow yourself to be treated.
"Is there no value to American corporatio ns in women caring for their children?"
***You will not be paid as much if you work less hours. There is simply less utility to the company. Unless you are more productive by working less hours then there is no value.
The fact that women are generally paid less than men should make us demand reforms, but the fact that so many of us live in increasing poverty should make us ready to risk our lives to overthrow capitalism and institute a humane socialist system at long last.
High Fianance is it great. I am sure now that Egypt is getting a Vote they will be really happy, too. When they realizing voting is not "establishing justice" of the USA Constitution.
this economist found discrimination to be 6.2 cents on the dollar.
Very good post. Thanks for making it.
I'd rather be female and make 77 cents for every dollar my male coworkers make, than stand a good chance of not make anything at all, at least in a well-paid professional setting.
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/reverse-gender-gap-study-young-childless-women-earn/story?id=11538401
Did you even read the same article I read? " At the senior vice president level at Wal-Mart, says the report, the average pay for a man is $419,435 a year. And for women? Just $279,772. That's $150,000 a gap"
Same positions, different pay.
And there's an unfortunate sliver of victimhood(*) in all this, to boot.
(*) Unfortunate, because in today's legal environment, victimhood can get a person a subsistence level remediation, but it then bars the door to true big-time success.
As you read they cannot answer the issues of choice of career, which they fought so hard to have. Which is it, do they have choices and use them or are they...yet again, victims of the male boogyman.
The wonderful thing about this is how infrequently you hear women hail the accomplishments they have made or tell the truth about our collective lives. In the age of the internet, this lie is being exposed for what it is.
Equality means getting the bad just as much as the good!!! Women should not come last...or first!
If there is any wisp of discrimination, I will go to the wall in the fight against that. But where there is equal opportunity, including unavoidable differences that are as well remediated as they can be, then it's time for every American to hitch up her (or his) pants and get on with life. If I want what Jane has, I have to do what Jane does.
Ironically, because so many women are applying for college, that actually makes it a lot harder for us to get in in the first place. I don't know why men aren't applying as much; likely they have more viable career options than women do (or they're generally more into careers where you work with your hands, e.g. plumbing/other technical & skilled labor). But point is that if you are a white, American female who needs financial aid, you're going to have the hardest time getting into college right now. It's not that easy for us as you make it sound. And while certain measures of the pay gap or other measures may overestimate the inequality or ignore certain causes of it, that doesn't at all mean that women have those sort of advantages, or at least on any consistent basis. If you disagree with the research, do your own and get back to us.
By keeping women all too aware that they are not valued they foster a sense of low self esteem and an unwillingness to press demands for equal tratment.
The only valid comparison:
A man and a woman have the same job, have worked for the company for the same length of time, are equally productive and valuable. That's what you compare.
Are you telling me that the woman is only getting 77 cents for every dollar her male counterpart gets?
There are many other factors about why "men" are "paid more."
In fact, in the lay-offs in the last few years, men were laid off more than women for that very reason - companies realized they could get the wages lower by laying off the men and have the women that were doing the same job for less keep their jobs. Look at the rates of lay-offs by gender.
So, if you are a man, maybe you should push for equal pay so that YOU won't be discriminated against when it comes to lay-offs, because you cost the company more for the same work.
I am not saying that is necessarily IS true, but could this be what is happening. And might there be some truth to it? If it is the case that men are underpaying women, then at places like PepsiCo, where Forbes has named their CEO ( a woman) the "most powerful woman in business" six years running, then surely under her reign, this dynamic must be lower, right?
I would be curious to see if it is or not. Maybe men AND women have some gut instinct that your average man is more valuable in the workforce than the average woman over 20-40 years and they take this into account from day one.
Like I said, I'm not saying it is right, I am just saying that may be how it is.
That is the point of "gut instinct" in that it's something that is not confirmed by facts. Doesn't mean it's the way it should be, you are right there.
Other companies, including federal and state governements, post a salary and then take in applications. I have no idea what world these numbers are coming from about how, of course an all male management team, conspires to pay every single women in America less than the male applicants. If this were happening, the laws suits would be numerous and all over the news.
This would also be a conspiracy on the level of who really shot JFK and did we ever land on the moon.
Just because someone claims to know how much another worker makes, does not make it a fact, But the remedies for this are codified within our legal system. A women, just like a man, can complain, ask for a raise, go to HR (made up off women), quit and/or sue.
In an interesting study in 2003, groups of people were asked to evaluate - after viewing videotapes or transcripts of interviews - men and women who were applying for a fictitious job, half of who tried to negotiate their salary and half of whom did not. What did they find? Men were always less willing to work with women who attempted to negotiate than with a woman who did not. They always preferred to work with a woman who stayed quiet. Men who negotiated were seen as strong, confident and more intelligent.
I would deduce that women quickly learn not to negotiate for their starting salary especially.
The republicans just unanimously blocked a bill that would have made it easier for women to fight for fair wages. Why?