The paragraphs below are from the latest issue of The Economist. The first argues against discrimination as the reason black men make 70 cents on the white man's dollar. It is the same basic argument I, and others, have been making regarding the gender wage gap. The second is the most compelling statistic I have ever seen in arguing against discrimination as the answer. I would love to hear Mercadia, Degsme or whoever explain this little jewel away.

"For every dollar that a white man earns, a black man makes only 70 cents. Such figures are sometimes bandied around to imply that nearly all of this gap is caused by discrimination. That is bunk. If a firm could really get the same work done 30% more cheaply simply by hiring blacks, someone would have noticed and made a fortune doing just that."

"A black woman with a degree earns as much as a white woman with a degree. But with a professional degree, the black woman earns 30% more (see chart 2). That does not prove that law firms discriminate in favour of black women—though they may. Another explanation is that a skilled white woman is more likely to have a rich husband (or indeed any husband), and so may have less incentive to maximise her earnings."

Provide the link to this?

Should I invoke your phrase?

I found it in under a minute on the Economist website. There is a link on the left-hand side to the magazine. The title is Black America I believe..you can find it in the index.

Good luck

kuruman,

You have a way of trying to readdress past points where they don't belong. You need to recognize when situations are different--even if they appear superficially similar.

Is that a gender-based deficiency? A la' the inability to read subtle facial expressions?

Merc:

This is a blog devoted to discussing gender issues. This is a gender issue that has not gone away. I can bring it every day without worrying about its' relevance.

Do I have to wait until the next posting by an XX blogger on the subject?

Uh....nope

I could point a finger at you and your (gender-based?) inability to stick to the point, but that would be beneath me.

Merc:

After mulling over your obtuse post again, I'm wondering if you are actually trying to discuss this issue. If so, rather than your usual utterly pointless critique, could you please explain why you think the information provided is not pertinent to the broader issue of the gender wage gap.

You can't possibly do it, but I would like to see you give it a shot.

Ok, it's obvious that you're confused *again.*

You are constantly mistaken kuruman. When are you going to understand what the issue is? Before you can make decisions about the issue, you have to understand what the issue *is.*

The issue is not whether wealthy women choose to work less or more or the same as other women.

The wage gap, the one that American society is attempting to rectify, has to do with discrepancies between men and women who do the same job. It is not *legal* to discriminate based on gender. It is also not *legal* to consider maternity leave or child-related issues when deciding salary--so those issues are entirely irrelevant. Marital status is *also* entirely irrelevant. The wage gap is merely an attempt to ascertain, in order to eradicate, any attempts by employees to save money by discriminating based on gender.

It is also an attempt to close the wage gap between male dominated and female dominated fields where comparable work is done.

Why don't you understand that? Is it really so hard for you to grasp this simple idea? Also, why are you so concerned with this? Your desire to rationalize sexism out of existence seems almost pathological. Is it a persecution complex? Do you think that we all blame you for gender-based discrimination and thus you need to protect yourself by trying to pretend that it's not real?

Because we don't blame you kuruman.

Sorry, Mercadia, but it is you that doesn't get it.

By-the-way, my post this morning was not prompted by anything specific in the blog...I haven't even read the blog today.

And again, I need to emphasize this again.

It is illegal to factor maternity leave into one's salary.

And for someone who apparently hates Bush, you really rely on his support groups in order to support yourself.

Are you a NeoCon or not?

Do you think it odd that you keep relying on arguments made by conservative political groups?

It's totally weird.

I just don't get why you're so concerned with this in the first place.

"For every dollar that a white man earns, a black man makes only 70 cents. Such figures are sometimes bandied around to imply that nearly all of this gap is caused by discrimination. That is bunk. If a firm could really get the same work done 30% more cheaply simply by hiring blacks, someone would have noticed and made a fortune doing just that."

Here's why this argument is bad. Firstly, no one ever said that EVERY black man makes 30 cents less an hour, so how could a business know who to target. You can't just hire any black man and assume he'll take 30% less pay. Secondly, someone would not start hiring all black employees because, surely, someone would kind of notice that and inquire as to why. So a firm cannot get labour for 30% less SIMPLY by hiring blacks. There would be a lot more to it than that. Whoever wrote that argument has a very thourough misunderstanding of statistics. But nice try.

Acro:

Obviously I disagree with you. Ever look at the lawn maintenance industry? Or fruit picking? These are areas where specific groups of people are hired precisely because they are willing to work for less. Knowingly, obviously, but what's the difference?

The main point of the logic, and I think it is absolutely logical, is that you cannot bandy about statistics like wage gaps and conclude that discrimination is the cause.

In any case, I'm much more interested in the second paragraph, and eagerly await your statistical analysis.

Merc:

The fact that black women with professional degrees make 30% more than their white female counterparts is...wait for it...a fact. It's not an argument is it? I got the information from a conservative publication. So what? They aren't even discussing the gender wage gap in their piece are they? Nope.

As usual, you don't actually argue the point at hand, just nip, nip, nip at the edges like a frustrated little doggy.