Memo to John Roberts: The Gender Wage Gap is REAL!

[irishgrl]

From the Institute for Women's Policy Research:
Institute for Women’s Policy Research | www.iwpr.org 1
IWPR #C362 September 2005
Memo to John Roberts: The Gender Wage Gap is Real
Population Survey data.
link To see the graphs, you need to click on the link.

Equal pay and the wage gap have become central issues in discussions of John Roberts’ nomination to the Supreme Court. Roberts authored documents in 1983 and 1984 suggesting he did not believe that that there was a gender pay gap or that women experienced pay discrimination, and voicing opposition to proposed actions to promote pay equity, including the Equal Rights Amendment and comparable worth remedies. For example, one memo referred to “the purported gender gap,” while another discussed “perceived problems” of gender bias, and another called comparable worth policies “highly
objectionable” and “staggeringly pernicious.”1 Census Bureau data show that the gender pay gap was quite real in the 1980’s, and persists today, even among men and women with comparable education levels.
******************
1 Amy R. Goldstein, Jeffrey Smith, and Jo Becker, “Roberts Resisted Women’s Rights; 1982-86 Memos Detail Skepticism,” The Washington Post, August 19, 2005, p. A01.
2 Memo to John Roberts: The Gender Wage Gap is Real Figure A presents an estimate of the cumulative loss over time, due to the gender wage gap, for the average college-educated woman since Judge Roberts dismissed the wage gap in 1984. The typical female college graduate in 1984, who is now in her mid 40s, has lost a total of $440,743 dollars in the years between 1984 and 2004. The total cumulative loss is estimated by comparing earnings of women and men who worked full-time, year-round at five points in time (1984, 1989,
1994, 1999, and 2004) using Current Population Survey data (and grouping women and men in five-year age ranges to calculate the average earnings gaps).
2 Women in their mid-40s today can tell you what their half a million lost dollars could have bought: a graduate education for themselves, top-notch college education for several children, a house, nursing home expenses for an elderly parent, or a retirement portfolio, among other possibilities. Sex-based wage inequality is not just “perceived” --- it is painfully real and leads to substantial differences in opportunity and security for college-educated women compared to their equally educated male counterparts.
3 Figure B shows the average earnings for women and men at the five time points, for college-educated fulltime year-round workers who were 25-29 years old in 1984. The gap grows larger as women and men age. By 2004, college-educated women aged 45-49 earn $36,842 (or 38 percent) less per year than their college-educated male counterparts. In their 20s, the
gap was $11,001 or 25 percent. We also calculated the total losses for all young, college-educated women who entered the work force
between 1984 and 2004.
2 The average earnings gaps in these five years were also used to estimate the earnings gap over the full 21 years from 1984-2004 (to
do so the gap in earnings in 1984 and 2004 were multiplied by three while the gap in 1989, 1994, and 1999 were multiplied by fi ve).
3 While women and men have somewhat different college majors, research shows the gender gap is larger than can be explained by
differences in college majors (Catherine J. Weinberger, “Race and Gender Wage Gaps in the Market for Recent College Graduates,”
Industrial Relations v37 (January 1998): 67-84).
Institute for Women’s Policy Research | www.iwpr.org 3
For more information on IWPR reports or membership,
please call (202) 785-5100, email iwpr@iwpr.org, or visit www.iwpr.org.

[strandinthewind]

I think it is a little unfair to hold this 20 year old doc. against him. What is his position now? Also, what was he writing these documents for - was it a personal view?

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I think it is a little unfair to hold this 20 year old doc. against him. What is his position now? Also, what was he writing these documents for - was it a personal view?

visit the IWPR, possibly they have more info on that........

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

visit the IWPR, possibly they have more info on that........

I do not want my blood pressure to rise with the femi-nazi chat (levity)

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I do not want my blood pressure to rise with the femi-nazi chat (levity)

Thats funny. Femi Nazi. but seriously, you also have to pay atttention to the statements attributed to him in that are they his own views or is he saying this stuff on behalf of a client. Just my thoughts

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by DavidMn

Thats funny. Femi Nazi. but seriously, you also have to pay atttention to the statements attributed to him in that are they his own views or is he saying this stuff on behalf of a client. Just my thoughts

True - but I would not want to be held too accountable for something I argued on behalf of someone 20 or so years ago

But, all this is academic because he will be confirmed.

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

True - but I would not want to be held too accountable for something I argued on behalf of someone 20 or so years ago

But, all this is academic because he will be confirmed.

Yup. But I think the more interesting nomination is the one coming up to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. that one could get interesting I think.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by DavidMn

Yup. But I think the more interesting nomination is the one coming up to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. that one could get interesting I think.

I think it will be Gonzales. But, we shall see.

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I think it will be Gonzales. But, we shall see.

I just hope it's not that wacko Brown. But Bush would be wise not to try to nominate a polarizing person like that. He would do well to Remember the Robert Bork fiasco form the 80's.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by DavidMn

I just hope it's not that wacko Brown. But Bush would be wise not to try to nominate a polarizing person like that. He would do well to Remember the Robert Bork fiasco form the 80's.

Brown would never pass.

Jones has a chance, but I think it will be Gonzales.

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Brown would never pass.

Jones has a chance, but I think it will be Gonzales.

Yeah, but if it's another woman, PLEASE PLEASE let her be better looking that Ruth Bader Ginsburg

[irishgrl]

now now....lets not go picking apart their looks, because those men aint nothin to write home about either!

DavidMn, Jason got that "femi-nazi" moniker from (GAD) Rush Limbaugh. His secret Idol.

btw Jason, the numbers dont lie. no matter how you spin it, women are STILL behind the 8-ball compared to men in the work place (the only exception I can think of is a job like mine (Government job) that has a set wage scale.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

. . . DavidMn, Jason got that "femi-nazi" moniker from (GAD) Rush Limbaugh. His secret Idol. . . . .

BULLSHIITTEEEEE

As I have mentioned before, I was using FEMI-NAZI wayyyyyyy before Limbaugh - but nice try