Evidence of employers paying women 23% less than men for doing the same work noticably absent

Submitted by Matt on Mon, 2015-11-23 18:32

Article here. Excerpt:

'Despite the widespread acceptance of the “77 cents on the dollar for the same job” claim, there is rarely ever any specific evidence presented showing that specific firms are in violation of federal law by paying women 23% less than men for doing the same job. What Obama, Clinton and gender activists are really implying is that firms across the country are illegally violating the Equal Pay Act of 1963 by paying women 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men, and those deliberate and ongoing violations are somehow going undetected. If there were such ubiquitous gender wage disparities in violation of federal law, why are there not extensive investigations by the Department of Justice or the Office of Civil Rights? And why isn’t there a cottage industry of law firms specializing in representing women who are victims of the supposed pervasive gender discrimination, the way there are hundreds of law firms representing mesothelioma victims who were exposed to asbestos on the job?
...
Unfortunately, the 23% gender pay gap for the same work claim is a statistical fraud that keeps getting recycled and promoted by politicians like Obama and Clinton because it apparently has a huge political payoff for uniformed voters. And it will continue to have a political payoff as long as average Americans, especially women, buy the statistical snake-oil promoted by Democrats that women are paid 23% less than men on average for doing the same job. Along with the myths of Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster, the 23% wage gap claim is a myth that just won’t die, regardless, or maybe because of, the scant evidence.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

I think this article is so true. It is what I have been thinking for years. Feminists can never name specific companies that are paying women less. And if paying women less for the same work was actually occurring, then companies would only hire women to cut their overhead and increase profits.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kris on Wed, 2015-11-25 03:31

Yeah. Not to mention the fact that the courts (including the Supreme court, in the U.S.) would be jammed full of lawsuits against all these companies and corporations that would be paying their female employees less, by scores of women. ...but they are not.
Not to mention the fact that this stupid "Wage-Gap" has been debunked at least 52 times (by my count) by economist after economist after economist. Including a number of feminist economists that were actually trying to prove the "Wage-Gap" existed. They finally had to conclude that #1. not enough data was available to "prove" it and/or #2. that it simply was a myth, from the start!

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by ErikaLancastor on Fri, 2015-11-27 07:37