AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (12 comments)

  1. That’s very good, but to improve it, i think you must consider not only the differences in absolute numbers, but also the difference in relative numbers (deaths per 1,000 workers, for instance)

    1. Women are 49.3% of payroll employment, so there is almost perfect gender parity in employment, and therefore I don’t think there would be any need to adjust for deaths per 1,000 workers.

      1. JuniataKid

        Come on, professor. You can’t build a false-argument, political wedge issue using actual facts.

  2. SeattleSam

    How long will it take for the premium gap in life insurance to equalize?

  3. Spencer

    If women were to take these high-risk jobs, wouldn’t the number of male occupational fatalities drop? If it is truly “equal,” the male number would drop as the female number rises. So the question should be about the willingness to risk the lives of more women, while sparing the lives of men. I assume there would then be an issue with women “sparing” men. It never ends, really.

  4. Dan in Philly

    Equal pay is really about marriage. Since most (I do stipulate most) of those who can afford to do so have one spouse sacrifice career to raise children, and that spouse is usually a woman, pointing to the “Gender pay gap” is only a different way of saying “Look, some people are making rational, reasonable choices which we disagree with!”

  5. Grahame Booker

    I have long looked forward to a narrowing of the gap in mortality rates-last time I looked women on average still outlive men by several years. No doubt there are many factors such as different participation rates in healthcare and hazardous occupations.

    1. Methinks

      Be careful what you wish for. As a result of the male shortsge in old age, the geezers who survive beyond the male average become a hot commodity in retirement communities! Silver linings, silver linings.

    2. Methinks

      Be careful what you wish for. As a result of the male shortsge in old age, the geezers who survive beyond the male average become a hot commodity in retirement communities! Silver linings, silver linings.

  6. You’re comparing apples and oranges here. The number of women in occupations at high risk of fatality is a completely separate issue. Equal pay is not just about the broad averages of who earns more, but rather equal pay for equal work, eg. if a woman and a man both do the same exact role, are they being paid the same? And the fact is that this too often is not the case. So, your “Equal Occupational Fatalities Day” idea is kind of glib and doesn’t have a direct and meaningful connection to what you’re trying to critique. My question to you is this: if a man and woman do the same job to the same standard of quality and put the same amount of billable hours into it, should they get the same paycheck?

    1. “You’re comparing apples and oranges here.”

      Yes, I agree, but that’s exactly the problem with “Equal Pay Day,” and why it can’t be taken seriously – it compares average wages, without controlling for anything.

      And yes, if a female realtor working on commission at Coldwell Banker sells $10m in properties and a male realtor sells $10m in properties, then of course they should get the same paycheck.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content