Equal Pay for Equal Workers
The main statistic people cite with respect to the gender wage gap is that women make, on average, 80¢ for every $1 men make (with most women of color making even less).
As Equal Pay Day comes around again, I’m gearing up for another round of people justifying the gap. The most cogent argument against the importance of that statistic is that it represents the uncontrolled wage gap — meaning the median earnings of all men in the US compared to the median earnings of all women, without accounting for differences in education, occupation, job title, years of experience, or hours worked. (Thus, those who say “Equal pay for equal work” doesn’t apply to the 80¢ statistic are correct.)
What people may not realize, however, as they explain the gap by saying it’s “unadjusted” or “uncontrolled,” is that doing so argues that women deserve to make less than men. They imply that because some factors that affect wages seem to be a choice, the gap is therefore acceptable.
I want to challenge falling back on the “adjusted” or “controlled” gap as the more important statistic. The 20¢ difference can be mostly “explained” by differing circumstances, but it’s still meaningful.
Don’t forget there’s still a controlled gap
First of all, let’s not discount the value of the “controlled” pay gap, estimates of which hover around 2% to 4% on average. For a job that pays $50,000 a year, that gap could be $2,000. I don’t know any woman who couldn’t come up with something nice to do with that $2,000 they’re being stiffed for no other reason than that they’re female.
The 80¢ statistic still tell us something valuable
We simply must pay attention to what the uncontrolled statistic is telling us. When each woman makes choices that make sense for her, yet on average comes away with a 20% reduction in income compared to men, the statistics tell a story that the individual women can’t. What does it say about our country? our education system? our unconscious bias? It says that we still have a long way to go before we actually value women.
You can’t choose your way out of the gap
I already wrote about the choices women supposedly have in the workforce (spoiler alert: they don’t really). The most galling discovery I made while writing it was that research has actually documented the reduction in wages that happens when women become the majority in a field. People think women are choosing low-wage fields, but in fact, those jobs pay lower wages because women chose them.
Sadly (but not unexpectedly), the opposite happens, too! As men enter a field, the wages go up — and women are pushed out. For example, in the early days of computing, the important work was happening in hardware, which was dominated by men. Programming was considered menial or secretarial, suitable for women. (Consider the film Hidden Figures, which takes place at a time when “computer” was a not-terribly-complimentary term for the women who “just” sat around doing math all day.) When companies realized that programming was important, they intentionally sought out men for that role, increasing salaries to lure them in. (Don’t “blame history,” blame conscious bias.)
Valuing advancement, which leads to better pay
But wait, it gets worse! This study shows that in the highest-salary fields, the controlled pay gap is quite small (less than 3%, though as I mentioned above, that’s not nothing), but the uncontrolled pay gap for these fields is close to or even more than the 20% average. While companies in these fields are working hard to combat direct discrimination — which is important, don’t get me wrong—the hiring, bonuses, raises, promotions, and other factors that lead to pay increases are still skewed greatly in men’s favor. (As a veteran of the tech industry, I have seen some of this in action, mostly as a result of unconscious bias.)
Allow me to quote from this fantastic article about why women really leave tech:
If women are not getting promoted as quickly as men, they are effectively earning less for the same experience level. Some possible reasons women may be getting promoted more slowly are biased performance reviews, less access to innovative projects, less visibility one level up, and pattern matching (leaders look for people who remind them of themselves). Equal pay is necessary but insufficient.
This problem is starting to be addressed. The state of Washington (where I live) recently passed a law requiring not just equal pay for equal work, but equal opportunities for worker advancement, regardless of workers’ gender. A similar bill has been proposed at the national level.
Valuing workers, not just work
It’s a good start, but changing perceptions will take longer. It’s time we took the spotlight off the value of women’s work (and “women’s work,” the figurative, pejorative term) and put it onto the women. Thus, I’m changing my rallying cry from “equal pay for equal work” to:
Equal pay for equal workers!
