Abstract
This article traces and evaluates the differential between men’s and women’s pay from 1979 through 2011 and the campaign to close that gap. It corrects and puts into perspective a lot of misinformation that abounds on the subject. In the not-too-distant future, the pay gap will disappear, if it has not already done so. After that, women’s earnings on average will be higher than those of men.
This article examines the relationship between men’s and women’s pay in the past, the present and the future. The campaign to achieve fair pay for women emerged from the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. It was championed by the National Organization for Women, founded in 1966, and subsequently by the National Committee on Pay Equity, founded 1979; the Institute for Women’s Policy and Research, founded in 1987 and a host of other women’s organizations. The National Committee on Pay Equity has over 100 member organizations and entities. Fair pay for women has also been an objective of various federal and state governmental agencies for the past 50 years or so. It will continue to be an issue for women’s groups, government agencies and others for a long time to come. Or will it?
Until recently, pay discrimination on the basis of sex was widespread and generally accepted. It has been part of the culture worldwide and throughout history. 1 In ancient Israel, men “dedicated” to the Temple were valued at 50 shekels and women at 30. Boys were valued at 5 shekels, girls at 3 2 (3 ÷ 5 = .6 = 60%).
The Equal Pay Act (EPA) was signed into law in 1963, 50 years ago as of this writing. The Civil Rights Act (CRA) followed in 1964 and Executive Order 11246 in 1965. Together, they are the foundation of the civil rights movement.
Equal Pay Under Federal Law
The EPA: The EPA (Pub. L. No. 88-38) amended the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 (Pub. L. No. 75-718). It prohibits discrimination in pay between men and women doing substantially the same work for the same employer: equal pay for equal work. Jobs requiring substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility and performed under similar conditions should be paid the same. The EPA included a number of employer defenses that could be used to justify pay differences: bona fide seniority or merit systems, quantity and quality of production, different locations, professional development and ability tests and any factor other than sex. The defenses limited the impact of the law. Enforcement of the EPA was originally with the Department of Labor’s (DOL), Wage and Hour Division. Although not as strong as many would have liked, the EPA was a step in the right direction.
The CRA: The CRA of 1964 (Pub. L. No. 88-352) was the big one. As amended in 1972, it prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin or sex in a host of areas ranging from housing to education. Title VII of the Act dealt with discrimination in employment: recruitment, selection, promotion, pay and just about everything else. An important qualification, however, was the Bennett Amendment, which became Section 703(h) of the CRA. With regard to pay, it restricted the CRA, with its stronger and broader powers, to the provisions of the EPA. Thus the EPA employer defenses continued to hobble the prohibition on pay discrimination.
The CRA created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer and enforce the Act along with the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Executive Order 11246 (1965): A federal executive order is an order from the President of the United States to his departments and agencies to do (or stop doing) something. Most are rather mundane dealing with federal housekeeping matters or are of limited scope. A few are of widespread and lasting historical importance. Executive Order 11246 was one of them. Among other things, it requires federal contractors with 50 or more employees or grant recipients in the private and public sectors to take affirmative action (origin of the term) to reduce and eliminate discrimination at work.
Given that almost all private sector employers of any size provide goods and services to the federal government, and that almost all state and local government agencies (including school districts and universities) receive federal funds, Executive Order 11246 has very broad application. Although not legislation, it is an important adjunct in the ongoing struggle for equal opportunity.
Enforcement: In 1978, the administration and enforcement of the EPA was transferred from the DOL to the EEOC and the DOJ. This made sense. Eradicating discrimination is the primary function of the EEOC. In addition, many pay discrimination charges and suits involve other forms of job discrimination as well. The EEOC and DOJ are in a better position to handle such matters. This is not to imply that the DOL was inactive. By 1978, it had recovered $162 million on behalf of 270,000 women in pay discrimination cases. 3
The EEOC and DOJ entered into two Memoranda of Understanding in 1999 to promote better enforcement of employment discrimination laws by sharing information and coordinating efforts. One was with the Wage and Hour Division of the DOL. The other was with the DOL’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.
More recently, the Obama Administration has established a National Equal Pay Enforcement Task Force. It brings together the EEOC, DOL, DOJ and the Office of Personnel Management. The purpose of the Task Force is to identify persistent problems of pay discrimination and make recommendations. One of the preordained recommendations is for the Administration to work closely with the Congress to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 1519 and S. 797), which would, among other things, effectively repeal CRA Section 703(h). 4
As developed below, these efforts may be designed to solve a problem that no longer exists—or, if it does, won’t for long.
Labor Force Participation Rates
One of the big changes in the United States and in other developed market economies is in the labor force participation rates (LFPRs) of men and women. The labor force is defined as all those working or actively seeking work.
In 1950, the LFPR of men was over 90%. For women it was 33.9%. By 1970, 79.8% of men and 43.3% of women were in the labor force and by 2011 the numbers were 70.5% and 58.1% (down from 60.0% in 1999), respectively (Table 1). The increase in the LFPR of women has more than offset the decline in that of men, which has allowed the total LFPR to increase from 60.4% in 1970 to 64.1% in 2011.
Labor Force Participation Rates of Men and Women in the Civilian Labor Force.
Source. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013; Women in the Labor Force: A Databook; Table 2, pp. 10-12).
The increased labor force participation of women is understandable. The increasingly consumption-driven economy encouraged many women to enter, remain and reenter the workforce. No doubt many women were also drawn by the prospect of a life enriched by a career. The new opportunities were made possible by the washing machine, drier, microwave, two-car garage and, yes, by “the pill” (which conveniently became available about 1961).
The decline of the LFPR of men has been almost as spectacular, but it is harder to explain. Part of it may be the result of available pension plans and disability insurance. Traditional private sector defined-benefit pension plans emerged in the 1950s and 1960s. By the 1970s and 1980s, many more men than before were able to retire as a result. Many pension plans have a disability retirement provision that in many cases operate to encourage early retirement.
Table 2 captures the impact of sex and marriage on labor force participation. The most interesting data are for married men and women. Married men are much more likely to be in the labor force than are single men and those divorced or widowed. Married women were at one time much less likely to work outside of the home than single women. Over the years, the difference has lessened. The LFPR experience of divorced and widowed women has increased also, but to a lesser degree.
Labor Force Participation Rates by Sex and Marital Status.
Source. U.S. Census Bureau (Statistical Abstracts of the United States: 2012; Table 597).
Spouse present.
Divorced/widowed.
One of the outcomes of the increasing LFPR of women has been that there were more and more women who felt the effects of pay discrimination. They joined and supported women’s groups and voted for elected officials who shared their concerns.
The Movement
By 1980, the relationship between women’s pay and men’s pay had changed little. The concept of “comparable worth” emerged within the EEOC at about that time. It proposed moving from the EPA’s “equal pay for equal work” to one of “equal pay for work of comparable worth.” “Worth” was to be measured by using “job evaluation” (point factor method), a management tool used to quantify the relative value of jobs and determine pay rates that has been around since the turn of the 20th century. The centerpiece of the point factor method is the choice and weighting of the “compensable factors” (job elements and worker qualifications for which the employer is willing to pay). Beyond that, it gets pretty complicated. 5 The advocates of comparable worth favored using the four factors enumerated in the EPA: skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions (usually equally weighted).
There followed a firestorm of articles, studies, hearings and litigation. Comparable worth was even adopted by several states and local governments and found its way into their labor agreements. It was not well received in the private sector, by the courts or by most economists.
The comparable worth proposal was essentially to move away from traditional market-based (or bargained) wages to a form of administered pricing. Instead of having pay rates determined by the equilibrium of the supply and demand of labor, they would be set by fiat. Rates for female-dominated jobs would be administratively or judicially raised to those of male-dominated jobs. If, for example, the job of librarian was deemed to be of the same worth (point value) as a bus mechanic, they would both be paid the same. The obvious problem would be that the employer would be flooded with applications for library jobs but unable to attract and retain mechanics.
Underlying the comparable worth debate was the assumption that any gender-based pay differences that could not be explained by objective and measurable job factors was due to sexual discrimination and must be eradicated.
In retrospect, comparable worth was an attempted “end run” around the Bennett Amendment to the CRA and the employer defenses of the EPA. It did not work. The courts did not buy the concept. It was too complicated and made no economic sense.
By about 1990, comparable worth had been replaced with “pay equity.” Women’s and men’s pay should be equitable. Who could be against “pay equity”? It is such a nice-sounding term. The problem with it was that “equity” is a value judgment. It cannot be measured. One person’s equity can be another person’s inequity. It could even be argued that pay was already equitable. What can be more equitable than impersonal market-based pay?
By about 2000, “pay equity” had morphed into the “pay gap.” It had none of the faults of pay equity (or comparable worth). It was measurable, there were public data available and it is easy to understand and communicate. The totally objective Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the Census Bureau routinely publish data on women’s pay as a percentage of men’s pay. If that number is subtracted from 100%, you get the pay gap. Today, the terms pay equity and pay gap are often used interchangeably.
The Pay Gap
In 1979, on the eve of the fair-pay campaign, women full-time wage and salary workers earned on average 62.3% of what men earned. The BLS data are based on median usual weekly earnings. By 2011, women were earning 82.2% of what men earned (Table 3). That is an 18.0 percentage point increase or a 28.0% improvement in 32 years. Is a 17.8% pay gap acceptable? Not to most women or to the men who support their quest for equality.
Women’s Usual Weekly Earnings as a Percentage of Men’s by Age.
Note. Full-time workers.
Source. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010; Highlights of Women’s Earnings in 2011, Report 1038, Table 13, p. 55).
The Census Bureau, possibly using annual earnings, reported that women earned 59.7% of what men earned in 1979, down from 60.7% in 1960. 6 The “59-cent dollar” rallying cry had been born. By 2011, the Census Bureau data had increased to 77.0%. That number, rather than the 82.2% reported by the BLS has been adopted and published by the DOL’s Women’s Bureau and by various women’s organizations. Unfortunately, the technical notes for the source (Table P-40) have disappeared from the Census Bureau website. This article will use BLS data.
Table 3 also breaks down the pay gap by age-groups. The gap has changed little for those younger than 20 years (0.9%) and for those older than 65 years (4.5%). The gaps for these categories were quite modest to begin with. Consider though, the marked improvement for women aged 20 to 24 and, especially, for women aged 25 to 34. One interpretation is that working women today have more education and job skills than their mothers and grandmothers. Many have also moved into formerly male jobs.
A widely held interpretation of the increase in the pay gap for women age 35 and older throughout the years is that it reflects withdrawal from the workforce or a move to part-time status because of childbirth and child rearing. Women’s pay never recovers.
The Motherhood Penalty
Table 4 reports data on the LFPR of women in the Civilian Labor Force with children, by the age of children, from 1975 to 2011. In 1975, women with children younger than 3 years had a participation rate of 34.3%. By 2011, it had increased to 60.9%. Similar but declining improvements were experienced by women with children younger than 6 and from ages 6 to 17. Not nearly as many women are withdrawing from the workforce to have and rear children.
Percentage of Women With Children in the Labor Force by Age of Children, Selected Years 1975-2011.
Source. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013; Women in the Labor Force: A Databook, Table 7, pp. 21-23).
There is something missing here. It is not only the age of the children but also the number of children. Based on antidotal evidence, the magic number is three. If a typical couple has three or more children, someone stays home with the kids (though not necessarily the wife). The cost of preschool, after-school programs and babysitters becomes prohibitive for most families.
Of course, some women still withdraw from the labor force to have and rear children and they often experience the “motherhood penalty.” Their job knowledge and work skills atrophy, technology changes and they get older. For men, there appears to be a “fatherhood bonus.”
As shown in Table 4, mothers of children of all age-groups have significantly increased their presence in the labor force. In 1975, women with children younger than 18 years had a LFPR of 34.5%. By 2011, it was 70.9%. The change is due to a number of things.
Employers, with the aid of federal and state law, have become more mother-friendly. Maternity leave must be allowed on the same basis as other leaves. Many employers provide or subsidize child care. In California, and perhaps elsewhere, there is a requirement that nursing mothers be provided with a specified private room (not a restroom) for that purpose. The FLSA requires that employers of 50 or more employees provide nursing mothers with a room to express breast milk for 1 year after the birth of a child. The room must be shielded from view and free from intrusions. It may not be a restroom.
It has become more socially acceptable (expected) that women continue their career after childbirth. As women have moved into more responsible positions, they have become too valuable and costly for the employer to lose unnecessarily. In addition, there are now many more women in responsible and policy-making positions throughout the economy. It is unlikely that they would condone overt pay or other gender discrimination.
Hours Worked
Women have always disproportionately worked part-time. As indicated in Table 5, a consistent quarter of working women are part-timers. In 1970, only 8.5% of men worked part-time. By 2007, that had grown to 10.7%. It jumped to 13.4% in 2010 and 2011. That may be due to the recession that began in late 2008. The incidence (and preference) for part-time employment among women appears to me a more permanent condition.
Part-Time Status, Average Hours Worked in Week and Weeks Worked in Year.
Source. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013; Women in the Labor Force: A Databook, Tables 20, 21 and 23, pp. 73-78).
Table 5 also provides data on average hours worked in a week (annual average) and number of weeks worked in the year by full-time employees. Men, on average, work more hours per week than women. In 1980, men averaged 41.5 hours and women 34.5. By 2011, the numbers were 40.6 and 35.6 respectively. Observe, however, that the differential is decreasing. In 1980, men worked 7 more hours per week than women. By 2011, it was 5.
The average male also works more weeks in the year. In 2010, 69.4% of full-time employed men worked 50 to 52 weeks (all year). Only 59.4% of women did. Much of this difference may be due to the preponderance of women in K–12 education. The difference in weeks worked per year has also declined over the years. More women are working the full year. The substantial drop in male rates from 2005 to 2010 may have been recession related.
Men, in general, spend more time on the job than do women. That accounts for some of the pay gap. Today, the difference is significantly smaller than it was in the past. That is consistent with the substantial progress made in women’s pay as a percentage of men’s.
Table 6 neutralizes the hours worked per week difference. It divides median usual weekly earnings in constant (2011) dollars by average hours worked per week to get an hourly rate for men and women. It shows that average hours worked per week by men has remained high. The recent decline is probably recession related. The hours worked by women has increased somewhat. Note the impressive increase in the hourly rate of women (27%) compared to that of men (4.6%) over the period. Consider also the decline in the pay gap by this measure from 22.8% in 1980 to 6.2% in 2011. That is, women were earning 93.8% of men’s earnings in 2011.
Median Weekly Usual Earnings of Men and Women, 1980-2011.
Note. In constant (2011) dollars converted to hourly rates by hours worked.
Source. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012; Highlights of Women’s Earnings in 2011, Report 1038, Weekly Earnings: Table 23, pp. 75-77, Hours Worked) and Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013; Women in the Labor Force: A Databook, Table 21, p. 77).
Unfortunately, the way the BLS reports data on weeks worked per year does not lend itself to this kind of analysis. If it did, the gap would be even smaller.
Hourly Employees
A somewhat different perspective on the pay gap may be gained from Table 7. It reports data on workers paid hourly. Although this excludes the large number of salaried workers, it has the advantage of neutralizing the effect of differences of hours worked in a week and weeks worked in a year. It should be noted that this is a different population from that of Table 6.
Women’s Earnings as a Percentage of Men’s for Hourly Workers.
Source. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012; Highlights of Women’s Earnings in 2011, Report 1038, Table 16, p. 58).
Observe how the women’s hourly rates as a percentage of men’s has always been higher than those based on median weekly pay in Table 3. In 1979, it was 64.1% (compared to 62.3%). By 2011, it was 86.8% (compared to 82.2%). In other words, the pay gap for hourly paid employees was 13.2% in 2011. Note also the much larger improvement for women 25 years of age and older paid hourly (48.7%) and especially for those 35 to 54 (over 50%).
It should not be thought that hourly paid employees earn less than salaried employees—far from it. There are millions of hourly paid jobs that pay very well. Consider our librarian and bus mechanic. However, since most pay data are based on weekly earning, and that the pay equity debate has focused on that, we will stay with median usual weekly earnings.
Educational Attainment
Education is a good investment; the more the better, up to a point. The average university graduate has lifetime earnings that are much higher than those of the average high school graduate. Most advanced professional degrees return even more.
Table 8 displays the pay gap at different levels of educational attainment for full-time wage and salary workers, 25 years of age and older. Note that in 2011, women’s earnings as a percentage of men’s was highest for high school “dropouts.” It was less, and about the same, for high school graduates and for those with some college or an associate degree. The differential declined further for those with a bachelor’s or advanced degree.
Women’s Earnings as a Percent of Men’s by Educational Attainment for Full Time Wage and Salary Workers 25 Years and Older, Selected Years 1979 – 2011.
Source. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Highlights of Women’s Earnings in 2011. October 2012. Report 1038. Table15, p. 57.
The pay gap has decreased for all educational categories; however, it has declined the most for those who have not finished high school. In 1979, women’s earnings as a percentage of men’s were fairly uniform, with college graduates having a higher percentage (66.7%) than high school nonfinishers (60.3%). By about 2000, they had changed places. The pay gap had declined more for “dropouts” than for college graduates. By 2011, women with less than a high school education earned 80.9% of that of their male counterparts whereas women with a college degree or higher earned only 74.9% of theirs.
It is not clear what has caused this reversal in the relationship. It may be a matter of supply and demand. Most things are. As more and more women have entered college, it has increased the supply of women graduates (relative to male graduates) and decreased the relative supply of less educated women. It may also be that male/female differences in education are less important in jobs that require less education.
The American Association of University Women has published an excellent study on the pay gap as it applies to college graduates. 7 Among other things, the authors found that 1 year after graduation, there was a significant difference in earnings between men and women in some fields. In engineering, it was 88%; in computer and information systems, 77%; in business administration, 84% and in the social sciences, 83%. In health care, science and math, and in education and the humanities, there was no significant difference.
After controlling for job and workplace characteristics, economic sector, hours worked per week, undergraduate GPA, undergraduate major, marital status and the like, the authors determined that one third of the pay gap cannot be explained. Women’s pay as a percentage of men’s went from 82% to 93%. That is, the unexplained pay gap declined from 18% to 7%. That’s not much. One wonders what it would be if weeks worked in a year, veteran status and specialty areas within majors were considered. Within university business schools, students studying human resources management are predominately female. In quantitative business methods, they are predominately male (author’s observation). There may be other examples such as between electrical engineering and industrial engineering or between physics and chemistry and biology or environmental science.
Of course, even if we could completely explain away the pay difference between men and women 1 year after graduation, that is only the beginning. Ten years after graduation would be more telling. By then the “motherhood penalty” and the “fatherhood bonus” would have taken effect.
Race and Ethnicity
Table 9 reveals some interesting differences between male and female pay among racial and ethnic groups. Whereas the improvement in the pay gap among Whites corresponds closely with that of the aggregate population, the experience of African Americans is quite different. Black women have long earned a higher percentage of what Black men earn than Whites. In 2011, it was 91.1%, compared to 82.1% for Whites. Less progress has been made in closing the African American gender pay gap since there has been less of a gap to close.
Women’s Earnings as a Percentage of Men’s by Race and Ethnicity.
Source. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012; Highlights of Women’s Earnings in 2011, Report 1038, Table 14, p. 56).
Similarly, the pay gap between Hispanic men and women has been less pronounced than among Whites for the same reason. In both cases, earnings levels, job mix, educational differences and other factors complicate comparisons. Data on Asians have only been collected since 2000 and are too erratic to allow meaningful comment.
Geographical Differences
The pay gap is not uniform throughout the country and certainly not internationally. Table 10 reports women’s earnings as a percentage of men’s in the five highest and five lowest states. It ranges from a high of 89.9% in California to 68.7% in Louisiana. The differences are substantial. They reflect a combination of the states’ job mix, industry mix, culture and perhaps the enforcement rigor of the EEOC regional office and state government equivalents.
Women’s Pay as a Percentage of Men’s in Highest and Lowest Five States in 2011.
Source. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012; Highlights of Women’s Earnings in 2011, Report 1038. Table 3, pp. 36-37).
If we were to control for average hours worked per week by state, weeks worked in a year and other objective factors, the pay gap in California and the other more progressive states may have already be gone. Indeed, women may be earning more than men on average in those states.
In comparison with other developed economies, the United States is in about the middle of the distribution of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries. The U.S. pay gap is 17.8%. The OECD average is 15.2. The range is from 37.5% (Korea) to 4.2% (New Zealand). 8 International comparisons are often hazardous due to differences in data collection, definitions, LFPRs and the like. However, OECD data are as good as they get. The pay gap has been shrinking throughout the Western developed world.
Wives Contribution to Family Income
As women’s labor force participation has grown, and as their average income has increased relative to that of men, their earnings have become more important within most families. Table 11 captures part of this change. In 1970, women contributed 26.6% of family income on average. By 2010, it was 37.6%. In 1990, in 19.2% of two-income families, the wife earned more than the husband. By 2010, it was 29.2%. These trends will continue.
Contribution of Wives’ Earnings to Family Income and Percentage of Wives Who Earn More Than Their Husbands.
Source. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013; Women in the Labor Force: A Databook, Tables 24 and 25, pp. 81-82).
There has also been a marked increase in the percentage of families in which the wife works and the husband does not, from 24.9% in 1990 to 38.3% in 2010. In some of these households the husband may be disabled and in others an older husband may have already retired. However, these proportions should be fairly stable over time. Most of the increase is attributable to the rise of the “house husband.” When somebody has to stay home with the kids, family economics suggests that it should be the parent with the lower earnings.
Observation
An assumption underlying the debate on comparable worth, pay equity and the pay gap has always been that any difference between men and women’s pay that is not explainable by objective data and information must be due to discrimination. In 2003, the highly regarded Government Accounting Office conducted a study on women’s earnings. 9 After controlling for occupation, industry, race, marital status and job tenure, the study found that 80% of the difference between men and women’s pay could be explained. Over an 18-year period, the pay gap was about 20%. In 1983, it was 19.6% and in 2000 it was 20.3%. 10 Regrettably, this study has not been updated. It would be interesting to see what it is today.
If we assume that the 20% figure continued after 2000 and apply it to the 2011 pay gap of 17.8%, we get an unexplained pay gap of 3.6%. If any or all of the 3.6% is attributable to discrimination, it is wrong and should be ended. Could it be, however, that the battle for pay fairness has been won?
A question: Why would a rational employer pay male employees more to do a job if it (he or she) could hire adequate numbers of women for less who could do the job as well (or better)? The answer is that there are job-specific supply and demand relationships that are based largely on voluntary occupational and educational choices. Again, our librarian and mechanic.
A related matter: At one time social attitudes and values dictated that women needed workplace protection, not equality (in the words of Eleanor Roosevelt). Numerous state and local laws and regulations existed for that purpose. For example, California prohibited an employer from allowing a woman to lift more than 25 pounds on the job or working more than 58 hours in a week. That restricted the types of work that women were allowed to do. Such laws were adopted with the best of intentions. However, by the 1970s they were viewed as impediments to women’s opportunities. Also the overtime requirements of the FLSA, the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the CRA reduced the need for such protection and they were repealed or allowed to die.
Conclusion
There has been enormous improvement in all measures of women’s employment status. Labor force participation has increased from 43.3% in 1970 to 60.0% in 1999. It has declined somewhat since then. It was 58.1% in 2011. Women in significant numbers have gone into a wide array of occupations and professions once deemed the preserve of men. And they have risen to positions of management and administrative responsibility only dreamt of in their mother’s and grandmother’s day. The unadjusted pay gap has declined from 37.7% in 1979 to 17.8% in 2011. However, men on average employed full-time still spend 5 hours more per week on the job than women; more men than women work 50 to 52 weeks per year; and women disproportionately self-selected (or are channeled into) lower paying occupations and fields. Is the glass half full or is it half empty? It’s both.
The putative (as though it existed) 17.8% pay gap will disappear about 2040. 11 After that, women on average will earn more than men on average. If we were to control for hours worked in a week, weeks worked in a year, time out of the labor force and other objective factors, the date would be earlier, probably much earlier.
Women have made great advancements at work. They should be proud. Men too. The widely accepted attitudes about discrimination on the basis of sex so endemic in the 1950s and earlier are, to a considerable extent, gone. We have made a lot of progress.
Some pockets of pay discrimination will remain. There will continue to be a need for EEOC and DOJ investigation and litigation to police and deter them for a long time to come just as there is a need for ongoing enforcement of wage and hour laws that have been on the books since the 1930s. But that will be a “mopping-up” operation after the main battle has been won.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.