Martin 1

Davis Martin

Professor Archer

ENGL 20803 (035)

22 April 2019

Evaluating the Factors that Make-up the Gender Wage Gap

In the twenty-first century, the minds of the populous have turned away from concerns

abroad and have focused more on issues at home. Of the many issues the United States is

currently facing, disputes regarding identity—whether gender, race, religion, etc.—have

inundated the modern discussion of social equality and a “progressive” society. The gender wage

gap is one of the most debated topics of this subset due to its poorly understood calculations and

the vagueness of its description. Although the literature contains vast amounts of studies

disproving the idea, many powerful corporations and news outlets still claim that the gap is

entirely caused by gender discrimination. However, many factors can influence the size of the

gap, and the existence of the gap does not necessarily entail a problem or proof of discrimination.

The modern challenge for many sociologists has been characterizing the causes of the gap and to

what extent they are responsible for the difference. In the following paper, the gender wage gap

will be refuted from the beginning to show that discrimination is most likely the least responsible

factor. Secondly, the factors most responsible for the gap will be analyzed for how they

contribute to a gender wage gap and assessed for how much of that gap they can account for.

Lastly, a novel prediction of the effect of discrimination on the wage gap will be presented.

Overall, while discrimination is always a factor in explaining wage gaps, the vast majority of the

reported gap can be attributed to real differences between men and women.
 Martin 2

Although many claim that the reported wage gap is proof in and of itself of modern

gender discrimination, this proposition is whole-heartedly misleading—if not disingenuous—

without further discussion and evaluation. Recent studies have reported the wage gap to stand at

approximately 18-20 cents on the dollar between men and women, meaning that for every dollar

a man makes a woman would make 18-20 cents less (Misra 1281). However, while that statistic

is factual, the way in which it is calculated accounts for its misinterpretation. This statistic takes

the median salary for all full-time working men and divides it by the median salary for all full-

time women with no other factors considered. Therefore, if hypothetically all men worked higher

pay jobs than women such as a doctor versus a nurse, this calculation would shed light on a very

large wage gap explained completely by simple vocational choice. While the gap in wages is

present, the jump to assume that discrimination is at play is none other than a common “non

sequitur.” Further data and reasoning must be supplied in order to logically connect these two

separate ideas.

While data proving that the gender wage gap is the result of discrimination is largely

lacking, many other hypotheses have been presented explaining a large percentage of the wage

gap. Among these, job choice or gender segregation is one of the largest contributors to the wage

gap. In addition, many have shown that personality traits unique to each sex can account for

some of the gap. Another reason for the presence of a wage gap is the difference in men and

women’s dedication to their job, including hours worked overtime or productivity, which often

accounts for bonuses and promotions. Overall, there are many reasons which have been shown to

cause gaps in wages; however, these reasons are only valuable if they can be analyzed for the

extent to which they effect the overall gender wage gap.

 Martin 3

The first explanation for why the gender wage gap exists is gender segregation. In 1960

the wage gap stood at 60 cents for women for every dollar a man made. However, just by

equaling the rate at which men and women graduate college, the wage gap dropped to 18 cents

on the dollar (Misra 1282). Due to this massive change in education equality, many have argued

that education should no longer be a line of reasoning to justify the wage gap; however, this

argument fails to take into consideration the value of the education the person attains (Blau and

Khan 48). If the majority of women choose majors that lead into lower-paying jobs than men,

gender segregation in the workplace occurs. Gender segregation refers to the split in which men

routinely choose higher-paying fields than women. For example, while most men choose to be

doctors and lawyers, women often choose nursing or teaching; therefore, although both have

education and skills, one sex is making a much larger salary due to job preference. In fact,

studies have found a direct correlation between gender segregation in the workplace and a

resulting gender wage gap (Misra 1282; Kleinians 565). At best this parallel shows the

importance of considering education for its effect on the wage gap, and at worst it simply proves

that there must be external factors that account for the wage gap besides blatant discrimination.

A common counterargument to this point is that these lower-paying professions are only

paid less because they are dominated by women. They attempt to prove this point by citing pay

discrepancies between the NBA and the WNBA or the small salaries of teachers. However, this

argument breaks down immediately. Both of these professions base salaries in a similar scheme,

which involves two overlying principles: total capital and “pyramiding” salaries of employees.

Total capital influences salaries because the company can only pay its employees less than its

total income or capital. This phenomenon explains why Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, Inc., makes

hundreds of millions of dollars each year, while the CEO of a small advertising firm only makes
 Martin 4

a few hundred thousand. The business’s capital sets the CEO’s base salary. The salary of the

company’s top employee then helps to set the salaries of the rest of the employees via a pyramid

scheme with a supply and demand principle at play. In other words, the most essential employees

(those with the highest skills, experience) are paid the highest, followed by the middle

employees, and lastly the lowest employees. These two factors combined completely explain the

pay discrepancy between the WNBA and the NBA and why fields such as teaching pay less. The

WNBA simply does not generate the capital that the NBA does; therefore, its players—even the

most talented—make significantly less. The teachers are paid less for the same reason—the

education market simply does not generate enough capital, especially in lower schools. However,

at universities, where the total capital of the school is higher and candidates for jobs are more

qualified, teachers are paid significantly higher. Therefore, women are being paid less as teachers

because they tend to prefer primary or secondary school teaching due to their apparent “high-

prestige”—a word referring to women’s natural desire to choose purposeful jobs over well-paid

jobs (Kleinians 567).

In addition to gender segregation, the pay gap between genders can also be explained by

analyzing the differences between men and women in job choice and commitment because of

family responsibilities. Statistics show that once the wage gap is adjusted to include this factor, it

shrinks to just a 92-94 cents to the dollar difference between men and women (Blau and Kahn

798; Kassenboehmer and Sinning 340). Overall, this factor is most strongly affected by children

and household responsibilities, which women are typically expected to be responsible for. The

need to devote time to family responsibilities results in women being less invested in their work

life and less likely overall to choose jobs which require them to stay with the same employer for

long periods (Blau and Kahn 817). Studies show that women outright avoid these jobs and tend
 Martin 5

to pick professions where general labor skills are necessary rather than company-specific skills.

This choice leads to a lack of female management positions as they tend to move from company

to company or just not seek out a management position, which would tie them down. All of these

decisions contribute to the gap in pay between men and women. Blau and Kahn report that this

phenomenon explains partly why the wage gap is rather obsolete at entry-level positions,

whereas the gap expands heavily as the experience needed for the job increases (807, 817). In

addition, the women that do choose to work for these higher-paying jobs or promotions are often

not chosen because employers are worried that they will not be dedicated enough. The

combination of these choices on the part of women compound to greatly explain the reported,

unadjusted wage gap.

The difference in job commitment between men and women can also be documented in

another way—by analyzing raw productivity data. Statistics from the Bureau of Labor show that

on average men are highly more productive in the workplace in multiple categories. When it

comes to hours worked, men outperform women outright working an additional 85 hours per

year. Additionally, men were two times more likely than women to work a full 40-hour work

week. Further, men were more than 2.3 times more likely to work 60+ hours per week. Women

on the other hand were 2 and a half times more likely to work 35-39 hours per week with 10.9%

of full-time women and only 4.3% of full-time men working these hours. Further, for the men

and women in this cohort, women actually made 107% of the wages the men of this category

made, showing a preference for women with this level of commitment (55). This is interesting to

compare as men seemingly are penalized for not working overtime whereas it is expected that

the women will not and are not penalized for it. This line of reasoning is consistent with the

discrimination theory presented by Blau and Khan where they theorized that women were not
 Martin 6

considered for managerial positions due to a lack of commitment (817). In addition, the labor

bureau states that the raw wage gap between single men and single women is only 94.2 cents for

every male dollar, further concluding the effect the family and job commitment has on women’s

wages (55).

Another factor greatly affecting the wage gap—but often overlooked—is differences in

personality between men and women. Multiple studies have shown links between traditional

feminine and masculine traits and how they contribute to the wage gap. Nyhus and Pons

examined multiple characteristics, such as competitiveness and willingness to seek conflict or

negotiate, for their effect in explaining the wage gap. After their analysis, it was shown that

agreeableness overall was the largest factor contributing to the wage gap such that agreeable

people earned significantly less than other cohorts (Nyhus and Pons 115). In addition, the

average woman was much more likely to be a part of this category than the average man, leading

to an increase in the reported pay gap. Further, the data supported the idea that willingness to

negotiate was a strong indicator of salary gaps as well, which goes hand in hand with overall

agreeableness. Women were much less likely to negotiate salaries causing them to be paid less

overall. In addition to these traits, men were much more likely to take risks, be ambitious, and be

competitive when compared to women, and all of these characteristics of men led to an increase

of salary (Nyhus and Pons 106). In comparison, Nyhus and Pons show that common feminine

traits “cause women to remain in a job for longer, to seek positions characterized with lower

mean salaries and to avoid competition” (107). Overall, these trends depict that simple

differences in general personality traits commonly differing between men and women can

explain a portion of the wage gap.

 Martin 7

A common counter-argument to this point is that these traits are only selected against

because they are traditionally “feminine” rather than because the traits are linked to any risk-

benefit association businesses claim they have. However, Nyhus and Pons found that men and

women were equally punished for having these characteristics (115). Therefore, regardless of

sex, people expressing a fear of confrontation, an agreeable nature, and lack of willingness to

negotiate wages all resulted with lower overall wages within the same job market. In addition,

the study found that men who tended to express these traits saw an even larger decrease in their

wages. Therefore, it was not actually women, but men, who were shown to have lower salaries

when compared to women with the same personality traits. This not only debunks the

counterargument, but in fact, it shows that it is actually men, and not women, who suffer

discrimination in this one area.

Overall, it is clear that many external factors contribute to the wage gap; however, this

does not prove that discrimination does not exist or is not important for understanding the gender

pay gap. The difficulty, however, is in understanding to what extent discrimination is at play. In

order to do this, an important distinction must be made between what will be defined as

discrimination and discrimination 2. Discrimination is defined as direct actions that favor one

person over another simply because of their sex and with no consideration to any other factor.

Discrimination 2, on the other hand, can be defined as choosing one person over another based

on common risks associated with that gender, class, race, etc. It is a fine line often crossed in the

hiring arena as businesses attempt to hire employees with the least amount of risk and the most

reward. This type of discrimination is evidenced by companies drug testing their employees,

which they do to assess risk of employing that person. This form of discrimination can also be

witnessed by companies hiring or promoting men over women based on the common trend that
 Martin 8

women most likely will not be as committed to their job or willing to work excessive hours.

Whether or not businesses should or should not be allowed to consider these factors in hiring

remains outside the scope of this argument.

Most of the unexplained part of the wage gap is explained by this type of discrimination

rather than outright hatred or disdain for women. This idea can be seen in many of the

aforementioned factors; however, it is most evident when relationship status and children are

controlled for. As previously stated, according to the Labor Bureau, in 2017 the gender pay gap

between single males and females without children was just 6%, which is down from the 18%-

23% recorded for men and women overall (55). Hypothetically, controlling for marital status and

childcare commitment should allow one to compare men and women who are dedicated to their

job and consequently work similar hours. And once this is done it shrinks the gap to just 6%

before any other factors are considered. This shows that at most true discrimination can only

account for 5% of the gap, since every other factor must account for at the least a percent of the

remaining gap. Further, it loosely proves a strong link between the unexplained part of the wage

gap and discrimination 2 as most of the discrimination in this grouping was related to women’s

lack of commitment to work because of marital and childcare duties. Therefore, it is an important

distinction for understanding discrimination and the role it plays in creating the modern wage

gap.

In conclusion, the gender wage gap is a complex calculation that can largely be explained

through external factors; however, discrimination can still result in at least a 5% gap between the

wages of men and women. Personality differences, commitment to the job market, and children

and marital status are just some of the external factors explaining large parts of the gap. In

addition, the studies conclude that men and women see similar decreases in salary when
 Martin 9

attributed to lack of commitment to the job or personality traits. In fact, often men see a greater

decrease in wages for having the same qualities as a female counterpart. The problem that will

continue to plague studies on this topic is the lack of ability to cross examine multiple traits at

once, thereby controlling for all external factors. This disability results in studies that only

examine and control for one factor at a time. Further, it is impossible to gauge or study

discrimination and its overall effect directly, since it is almost impossible to prove or highlight

discrimination. Moving forward, the wage gap can be greatly reduced by passing regulation

forbidding employers from considering marital status or childcare responsibilities when hiring or

promoting their employees. In addition, study techniques must be further developed to allow

cross-examination of all external factors at once to give a true depiction of the current wage gap

in the United States.

 Martin 10

Works Cited

Misra, Joya. “The Gender Wage Gap in the United States and Cross Nationally.” Sociology

Compass, Vol. 8, no. 11, Sept. 2014, pp. 1281-1295, doi:10.1111/soc4.12213.

Blau, Francine D., and Lawrence M. Kahn. “The Gender Wage Gap: Extent, Trends, and

Explanations.” Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 55, no. 3, Sept. 2017, pp. 789–865.

EBSCOhost,

lib.tcu.edu/PURL/EZproxy_link.asp?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t

rue&AuthType=cookie,ip,uid&db=eoh&AN=EP125025842&site=ehost-live.

Kassenboehmer, Sonja C., and Mathias G. Sinning. “Distributional Changes in the Gender Wage

Gap.” ILR Review, vol. 67, no. 2, Apr. 2014, pp. 335–361,

doi:10.1177/001979391406700203.

Kleinjans, Kristin J., et al. “Occupational Prestige and the Gender Wage Gap.” Kyklos, Vol. 70,

no. 4, Nov. 2017, pp. 565–593. EBSCOhost,

lib.tcu.edu/PURL/EZproxy_link.asp?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t

rue&AuthType=cookie,ip,uid&db=eoh&AN=EP125461425&site=ehost-live.

Nyhus, Ellen K., and Empar Pons. “Personality and the Gender Wage Gap.” Applied Economics,

vol. 44, no. 1–3, Jan. 2012, pp. 105–118. EBSCOhost,

doi:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raec20.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Highlights of Women's Earnings in 2017.” BLS Reports, No.

1075, Aug. 2018, pp. 1-60, https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-

earnings/2017/pdf/home.pdf