Quick run through logic town, regarding “pay equality”:
Let’s say that women are, in fact, paid 22% less than their equally trained and experienced male counterparts.
Let’s say that you are the owner of a business.
Let’s say you are in business to make money, and one of the ways to make money is to spend less on things you need.
Let’s say that you have the choice of hiring one of two candidates, both with the same education, time in industry, equivalent track records for return on investment, same age, same height, same weight, same race, same hair color – in other words, everything is identical about them – except one is male, and one is female.
Would logic not dictate that hiring the woman, who is “paid 22% less”, is more cost effective than hiring the man? Both candidates would bring in the same amount of business, or produce the same amount of product, or sell the same number of widgets, so paying less to get that same income makes sense, right?
Except that there are laws saying you can’t do that.
The “wage inequality” is based on – get this – life decisions made by the people involved. The female in the scenario above would make 22% less over her career because she would choose to take time off to start/raise a family, or get married and allow her husband to support her, or one of thousands of choices that a female would make, because she has all these options open to her. Yes, the male could also make those decisions – but most of the time, a male WON’T make those same decisions, would stay in this or a better position, and continue to earn throughout his life.
Think about that for a while.
Chat ya later…
Thanks for stopping by, In GOD We Trust, and Wear Red on Fridays!