Male-Female Facts and Fallacies

71

The hourly pay of women who work part-time has been found to be 20 percent lower than the hourly pay of women who work full-time, even when comparing women with the same levels of education and the same family circumstances such as being married, divorced, or with dependents.3 3

Even this disparity understates the rate at which part-time and full-time workers are compensated, since part-time workers— whether women or men— are far less often included in employers' health insurance or pension plans. Working part-time also restricts the range of industries and occupations available, since not all work can be done as readily on a parttime basis. Half of all women who work part-time do so in only ten industries out of 236 industries surveyed.3 4

Domestic Responsibilities

In principle, family responsibilities can be divided equally between husband and wife, father and mother. In practice, however, that has not been the norm in most places and in most periods of history. Since economic consequences follow from practices, rather than principles, the asymmetrical division of domestic responsibilities produces male-female differences in incomes in many ways besides those already mentioned. Moreover, statistical records of money payments can be misleading as to economic realities. Family income is pooled income, and how it is spent, for whose benefit, does not depend on whose name is on the paycheck or paychecks, or whether one paycheck is larger than the other. In some families, for example, the largest share of the family income is spent on people who earn no income at all, the children, especially when they are attending expensive colleges.

Who decides how much of family income is spent, where, for what, or for whom, cannot be determined by income statistics based on whose name is on paychecks. According to The Economist magazine, "Surveys suggest that women make perhaps 80% of consumers' buying decisions— from health care and homes to furniture and food."3 5 A government study in early twenty-first century America showed that the average American family

72 Economie Facts and Fallacies

spent 70 percent more on clothing for women and girls than on clothing for men and boys.3 6 In some of the most traditional cultures, where male dominance has been most visible, it has not been uncommon for the man to be the sole income-earner and to turn over the bulk of that income to his wife to budget and spend at her discretion. Such practices have been common in Southern Italy in the past and in Japan today, as well as among many traditional working-class American families in times past, even— if not especially— in what have been described as "male-dominated societies."

The earning of that income can also be a joint enterprise, regardless of whose name appears on the paycheck. Time that a bachelor spends shopping, preparing meals or going out to restaurants, taking his clothes to the laundry or dry-cleaners, entertaining guests or arranging dates, is available to many married men to put into advancing their careers instead, because their wives relieve them of such concerns. Given these and other ways in which traditional wives have freed up the time of their husbands, it is hardly surprising that married men have usually earned higher incomes than single men of the same age and education.

Given the incentives created by having children to support, it is likewise not surprising that married men with children have usually earned the highest incomes of all, since higher earnings are more imperative for fathers, whether these additional earnings are obtained by working overtime or by choosing more taxing jobs that pay more. Because the situations of husbands and wives have not been symmetrical in traditional families, it is likewise not surprising that marriage has had opposite effects on the incomes of women and men. Women who have never married have higher average incomes than women who have, and women with no children have higher average incomes than women with children.

Another way of looking at this is that the traditional division of family responsibilities has meant that wives have sacrificed their own incomeearning potential possibilities and enhanced that of their husbands, with the resulting family income then being jointly spent. In so far as this situation is mutually agreeable and on-going, statistical data based on whose name is on what paycheck are largely irrelevant. However, rising rates of divorce

Male-Female Facts and Fallacies	73
make such data very relevant and such traditional arrangements	more
problematical.

In effect, the traditional wife has been investing in her husband's career, and a divorce means that the value of that investment— made for years or even decades— can be lost to her. Alimony and child-support payments made after a divorce may or may not recoup the value of that investment. Quite aside from the sacrifice of earnings potential by the wife during the marriage, she has also lost the economic value of work experience, continuity, skills upgrading, and seniority, so that her earning capacity upon re-entering the labor force after a divorce is lower than if she had remained single, while the earning capacity of her former husband is higher as a result of her sacrifices.

Those who think in terms of principles, rather than practices, see no reason why ex-husbands are not as much entitled to alimony as ex-wives, at

least in cases where the woman has	a higher income, a higher earning
potential, or a higher level of wealth.	However, in terms of practices, what
is the ex-husband being compensated	for?

EMPLOYER D I S C R I M I N A T I O N

Equally as important as determining how much discrimination exists is determining where it occurs— and what the economic incentives and constraints are. People who discriminate against girls when it comes to education pay no price for that but employers who discriminate against women workers do. If employers pay a woman only three-quarters as much as they would pay a man for doing the same work with the same skill, this means that those employers who hire an all-female workforce can get four workers for what other employers are paying for three. Smaller production cost differences than that can mean that some companies prosper while some other competing companies go out of business because their high production costs prevent them from selling profitably at competitive prices. Even if discriminatory employers do not think things through this way, the

74 Economie Facts and Fallacies

competition of the marketplace will tend to force the higher-cost producers out of business, whether they understand why or not.

Much discussion of employer discrimination against women has focused on employer beliefs or attitudes which could lead to such discrimination. However, as in the case of racial and ethnic minorities, the employer's beliefs or attitudes are not the only factor, nor necessarily the most important factor, in determining what actually happens. The more highly competitive the market for labor and for the employer's products, the higher the cost paid for discrimination and consequently the less leeway the employer has for indulging his prejudices without risking his own profits and ultimately the financial survival of the business. On the other hand, enterprises not subject to the full stress of a competitive market— monopolies, non-profit enterprises, government agencies— have greater leeway. The empirical question of how much employer discrimination there is and how much of the male-female income gap it explains requires comparing comparable people and comparable situations. Simple as that might seem, it is seldom simple in practice.

Where a particular job involves contact with the customers or clientele of an employer, the prejudices or biases of these people outside the firm itself can become incentives for the employer to discriminate, which must then be weighed against the costs of discrimination. In times past, some people had less confidence in the professional ability of a female attorney or doctor, or else just felt more comfortable dealing with men in roles where they were accustomed to dealing with men. In any event, the question before the employer was not whether these feelings were justified but how widespread they were and therefore whether adding a woman would help or hurt a private medical practice or a given law firm, even if the woman were fully as qualified as the men currently employed.

In short, there are economic incentives both for and against discrimination, and the net balance of their effects is an empirical question. So are the effects of other factors. Alternative explanations of male-female differences can be tested against empirical evidence not only for the present but also for the past, especially when considering changing male-female