The Gender Pay Gap Is Real

 A recent study conducted by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) (Behind the Pay Gap, April 2007) concluded that although women have made great progress in education, these gains have not led to pay equity.  Women who work full time earn about 77 percent of what men earn who are employed full time. 

Nate Viall (in an Op Ed article in the Des Moines Register, May 14, 2007) disputes the conclusions of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, academic studies, and professional association findings.  He claims that the pay gap cannot exist because there is a law against it and human resource personnel (many of whom are women) have gender equity as a high priority.  We all know that laws do not necessarily prevent “illegal” behavior.  Think about how many 17 year old youth purchase alcoholic beverages, how many people drive faster than the legal speed limit, and the number of companies that hire illegal immigrants.  The existence of a law against gender pay discrimination does not mean that pay inequity no longer exists, whether or not human resource staff hold equity as a high priority.  

Viall goes on to argue that if any pay differences exist they are not due to discrimination, but to women’s fewer years of work experience and their choice of occupations that do not pay as well as male dominated occupations.  Researchers agree that some of the pay gap is due to different work experiences and occupations.  However, even when women have the same education, work experience, and are in the same occupation, they earn about 80 percent of their male co-workers.  For example, a study of attorneys who graduated in 2000 by the Nevada Bar Association found that in 2003 male attorneys earned $79,253.04 (an increase of $4,156 over 2001) compared to the average salary of $68,654.93 (a decrease of $665 over 2001) for female attorneys who graduated the same year (www.abanet.org).  Female sales and marketing managers earn $46,696 compared to an average of $74,932 for male managers.  Fresh out of college, there is little differential between the starting salaries of male and female graduates in the same occupations.  But after one year, females begin to fall behind making about 80 percent of their male peers’ earnings and after ten years, they are earning 69 percent of male co-workers pay. (Please visit the AAUW website-aauw.org- for a list of scientific, peer reviewed studies supporting these conclusions.)   

A prominent instance of gender pay discrimination was illustrated fifteen days after Viall’s op-ed article.  Lilly Ledbetter was employed in a male dominated field for Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company.  She brought suit against Goodyear Tire claiming that she was paid less than equally experienced co-workers in the same position.  The courts agreed, all the way to the Supreme Court, that Goodyear Tire discriminated against her on the basis of her gender.  However, the Supreme Court ruled (in a 5 to 4 decision) that because she did not file suit against Goodyear Tire within 180 days of her last discriminatory raise, she could not sue them to remedy the problem and compensate her for the years she was paid less than her male peers. The Supreme Court’s narrow interpretation of the time limit for filing a discrimination suit against an employer has prompted members of the U.S. House of Representatives to propose legislation that would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and extend the time limit (The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act – HR 2831).  

Pay inequity is a very serious matter for women and their families.  Over a working lifetime, estimates of what the wage disparity costs the average American woman and her family range from $440,000 (Institute for Women's Policy Research. 2005) to $2,000,000 (Evelyn Murphy. 2005. Getting Even. NY: Touchstone).  These “lost wages” translate into a lower standard of living for single mothers and their children, partially explaining the fact that the person most likely to be poor in this country is the child of a single mother.  In fact, if women were paid as much as comparable men, the poverty rate would be cut in half (National Committee on Pay Equity 2002).  The lost wages mean women have less income available to save for retirement and contribute less income to social security and pension plans.  Since women outlive men by three years on average, they will have to stretch their smaller pensions and savings over a longer period of time than men will.  Thus the consequences of the gender pay gap extended into retirement may make the difference between a dignified old age for women or one of destitution and poverty.    

Progress in pay and educational equity has certainly been made since passage of  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.  However contrary to the conclusions presented by Mr. Viall, the gender pay gap continues to exist.  Correcting this disparity is a matter of fairness.  People who do the same work should receive the same pay. 

Jeri Prescott, AAUW Member, IA AAUW State Public Policy Committee Member

Dr. Terry Besser, AAUW Member, Professor of Sociology, ISU