Saturday, March 10, 2007

Women make wage gains in California

Rah rah, siss boom bah! The LA Times gushes that "Pay for women rose a median 5.3% from 2000 to 2006, versus a 1.7% drop for men, a report says."

Among this feminist agenda driven hurrah, there is NO MENTION of why wages for men are dropping, namely, a huge influx of illegal aliens driving down wage levels in occupations men tend to predominate in (construction, agribusiness).

And the LA Times wonders why its circulation keeps dropping? When their political meta-narrative tries to utterly hide the truth about what is going on, why should we buy their rag???

A little bit of truth did sneak into the feminist meta-narrative:

But the overall wage picture is mixed, she said. That's because gains come as large numbers of male workers, particularly those in manufacturing jobs, see a slowing in wage growth or a wage decline. More of the wage growth is occurring among married than among single women, but Ross said married women might be working more hours to make up for family income lost when their husbands were laid off.

"Not all of these women are willing workers," she said.

And of course, the same old "women still earn substantially less than men" crap is trotted out:

The data are consistent with other studies showing women making wage gains against men. And though U.S. women overall still earn significantly less than men — 86 cents for every dollar a man makes — the new California numbers
indicate that the wage gap is continuing to shrink nationally,

AGAINST Men? Good lord, the more bacon my wife, or any thinking man's wife, can bring home, the better.

What is truly annoying about this crap:

1. More often than not, the various figures showing women earning significantly less than men are based upon the communistic idea of "comparable worth". Sorry, but demand for secretaries and office assistants (predominantly female) and demand for truck drivers and construction workers (predominantly male) will be driven by different market forces, no matter what your social(ist) "scientist" claims about "comparable worth".

2. Never does there seem to be there any quantifiable proof of systematic wage discrimination for a man and a woman, at the same skill level, with the same level of seniority, in the same rank.

3. Ah, but over time, men still out-earn women because they attain a higher skill level, seniority and rank, whines the feminist meta-narrative. Well, there is a very good reason for this, and it is spelled C-H-I-L-D-R-E-N. A woman typically does drop out of the work force at least for a short time to birth, nurse, and above all raise children. Meanwhile, her husband, if he's any good, works all the harder to provide for his family. And this is a good thing. How perverted the feminist (leftover communist) meta-narrative to demonize a husband who does the right thing and works harder for his wife and children.

Now is there anything wrong with incredibly hard working or professional women? Hell no; I was raised by one. And child rearing isn't for everyone, there is nothing wrong with a woman who decides to forego children and focus entirely on becoming a captain of industry or a Nobel scientist, if that is what she really wishes. More power to her.

But the realities are that men will tend to at least slightly predominate in certain fields, for the aforementioned reason.

No comments: