The Corner

More on the Gender Wage Gap

The Nation’s take on my column is much more intelligent, and less full of invective, than Jezebel’s (admittedly, a low bar). But it’s still flawed.

Bryce Covert cites studies that attempt to adjust for several factors other than discrimination that might explain raw differences between men’s and women’s wages, and notes that some of those studies still find differences that aren’t accounted for. That’s true! But we can’t assume that all of the unexplained difference results from discrimination. It’s, well, unexplained. It could be that the studies aren’t correcting for everything they should be–and in fact studies that correct for more factors, unsurprisingly, find smaller unexplained gaps. (I cite some of them in my column, and Covert doesn’t poke any holes in them.) Or it could be that those factors are just very hard to control for.

Anyway, my point in the column wasn’t what Covert takes it to be. I’m not attempting to prove that discrimination plays no role in wage differentials, and I’m not attempting to show that tightening the regulatory and legal screws on employers to reduce those differentials is always a bad idea (although I’m skeptical). The only legislative proposal that the column condemns is the comparable-worth bill called for by NOW. Covert doesn’t try to defend that law.

All I’m trying to show is 1) that the wage differential is not primarily the result of discrimination by employers, 2) that the prevailing feminist rhetoric on the issue, which moves straight from raw wage differences to the need for legislation to combat employer discrimination, is mistaken, 3) that there’s no reason to expect or want the gap ever to close completely. Covert doesn’t really contest any of these points.

Update: Covert has updated her post to respond to the above. All I’ll say in response to her latest comments is that H.R. 1493, the NOW-endorsed bill I criticize, does indeed get government involved in deciding how much different jobs should pay. See, for example, the title of Section 3: “Equal Pay for Equivalent Jobs.” There’s a lot of mischief in that phrase.

Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor for National Review, a columnist for Bloomberg Opinion, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and a senior fellow at the National Review Institute.

Most Popular


Jussie Smollett Jokes Declared Off-Limits

The Jussie Smollett story has been declared not fit for jokes. "It's a straight-up tragedy," declares the co-creator of a Comedy Central show, South Side, set in Chicago. Bashir Salahuddin, a former Jimmy Fallon writer, says “The whole situation is unfortunate. Particularly for the city, there’s bigger ... Read More

What The 1619 Project Leaves Out

“The goal of The 1619 Project, a major initiative from The New York Times that this issue of the magazine inaugurates, is to reframe American history by considering what it would mean to regard 1619 as our nation’s birth year,” The New York Times Magazine editors declare. “Doing so requires us to place ... Read More
PC Culture

Courage Is the Cure for Political Correctness

This might come as some surprise to observers of our campus culture wars, but there was a time, not long ago, when the situation in American higher education was much worse. There a wave of vicious campus activism aimed at silencing heterodox speakers, and it was typically empowered by a comprehensive regime of ... Read More