Tag: wage gap

The Wage Gap Is Real, And We Should Keep It Around

By Mason Mohon | @mohonofficial

America’s run-of-the-mill slightly progressive feminist will bring up the same ailment of industrial society regardless of whether or not he or she is an actual radical leftist. This ailment is the wage gap. It is the feminist exhibit A of why the patriarchy is in full force and working day and night to oppress women.

Continue reading “The Wage Gap Is Real, And We Should Keep It Around”

Advertisements

The Gender Pay Gap is Perpetuated by Young Women Who Choose Low-Paying Jobs

By Jason Patterson | USA

The gender pay gap is by young female adults who choose jobs that pay less, a major study has found.

Even though teenage girls have a higher chance of attending a university, their male counterparts tend to major in professions with higher paying salaries, as the University College London (UCL)’s Institute for Education has shown in their latest study.

“Importance of recognizing the role of both boys’ and girls’ choices in perpetuating labor market inequalities” Professor Lucinda Platt, reported.

Shortly after she added that teenagers should be “encouraged and supported to think beyond gender roles and consider a range of future career options.”

Research has proven that girls thought they had a 71 percent chance of going to university, and 14 percent of girls were certain they would attend one.

On the other hand, with boys, the average expectation was 63 percent, and just under 10 percent were certain they would attend university.

They then asked what career aspirations the young people may have, and the average hourly wage for the occupations that girls aspired to was 27 percent lower than the boys.

Over 7,700 teenagers in the UK who are all part of the Millennium Cohort Study, a study which has followed their lives since they were born at the turn of the century.

When they were asked these questions at 14, the most popular jobs for both boys and girls included some highly-paid careers. However, the pay among the jobs girls aspired to was on average much lower.

In this study, they did not include the option of becoming a professional sports player due to the overwhelming majority wanting to play in the NFL and the NBA and according to the NCAA, only 1.7 percent of college football players and 0.08 percent of high school players play at any professional level. Only 1.3 percent of college hockey players and 0.1 percent of high school players play professionally. In basketball, only 1.2 percent of male and 0.9 percent of female college players play pro ball; for both, only 0.03 percent of high school players make it. And only 1 percent of college soccer players and 0.04 percent of high school players go pro.

Girls wanted to be either a medical profession, a secondary school teacher, a singer, the legal profession, a vet, a nurse or a midwife. For the boys, it was a professional sportsman, a software developer, an engineer, the army, or an architect.

Males and Females both favored jobs where the workforce was dominated by their own sex. Boys chose occupations with an average workforce that is 74 percent male, while girls chose jobs where women make up 59 percent of the workforce.

The final statements were by Dr. Sam Parsons, a co-author, saying he was surprised to find such “gendered differences” in young people’s aspirations. He said that “Despite aiming high academically and professionally, girls still appear to be aiming for less well-paid jobs.”

We Should Not Change the Minimum Wage. Here’s Why.

By Nick Hamilton | USA

You’ve heard both the left and the right assert their claims. The left claims that we need to raise the minimum wage as high as $15/hour. The extreme economic right claims that we should have zero minimum wage at all, and many people on the right who desire a minimum wage say that our current federal standard is too high and too harsh on businesses. However, the real solution to maintaining a stable economy isn’t raising or lowering the minimum wage; we should instead keep it the same federally, and leave it up to the states.

Here’s why we can’t raise it: inflation. The inflation that raising the minimum wage would cause is unimaginable. First off, struggling business owners would be forced to lay off employees, or if their company needs a lot of employees, they may even go as far as needing to shut down their business entirely, as they’d have not enough employees or money to function. Not only that but to be able to afford to even pay the employees that the business IS able to keep would require businesses to raise the price of their goods or service. This drives customers away, and it gets to the point where there’s an abundance of supply, but not enough demand. However, the business cannot lower prices, because they need every penny of every sale in order to comply with a $15/hour regulation that the government put intact.

Now, let’s go the opposite direction for a second. Lowering it isn’t a good idea either. Imagine yourself working hard in a factory, working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week. Under our current federal minimum wage, the lowest you can make would be around $609 per week with those hours, and with around roughly 10% taken out of that for taxes, you’re looking at around $550/week. You need that $550 in order to try and live your life, and in some cases, even raise children. However, if the US decided to abolish the minimum wage, businesses would be legally obliged to pay $0.00 an hour, or $0.00 a week, therefore making more people apply for welfare, which costs who money? The taxpayers!

Lowering the minimum wage from $7.25 could cause undesirable outcomes. Look at Bangladesh and their beautiful worker’s rights record. People work incredibly long hours for a few bucks in Bangladesh. Also, a lot of people overlook this, but our neighbors down south aren’t exactly dishing out the dough either. Mexico’s minimum wage equals out to around $4.00/hour. We have an immigration problem in this country, and one big reason is that people want to make more money while working the same hours in America! So, do we really want to lower the minimum wage? Do we really want to put OUR citizens in the same financial boat that many Mexicans are in right now?

Therefore, both sides are wrong in this argument. Raising the minimum wage isn’t the answer, and lowering it is just as bad. Therefore, we need to keep the federal minimum wage at $7.25, and if the states decide that they want to cause inflation by raising the minimum wage, that’s their problem, not the US’s problem as a whole.

Was Murray Rothbard a Sexist?

By Mason Mohon | USA

Multiple times throughout the years, Murray Rothbard has criticized many women-oriented movements. To anyone first stepping into libertarianism, this is a seemingly obvious red flag. One of the most pronounced and influential libertarian theorists of modern times has literature rife with what looks like sexism. Who in their right mind could support the teachings of a man who was against the women’s suffrage movements of the 1830’s and stood against the women’s liberation movements in the 1970’s? Should Rothbard be completely disregarded for his sexist comments?

In short, not at all. There are two main writings by Rothbard I would like to focus on, and these two writings are writings usually cited when people are making accusations of sexism. The first of these is his essay Origins of the Welfare State in America and his article Against Women’s Lib, which can be found here and here respectively.

In the first place, Rothbard’s essay Origins of the Welfare State in America should be focused on. The intent of the essay was to make an analysis as to how the welfare state has expanded, hence its name. Right off the bat, we can see that Murray Rothbard did not title this essay “Why Women are Bad.” Rather, the article’s entire intent was to analyze how the welfare state arose.

The reason people see this article as a sexist one is first that of the section titled “Yankee Women: The Driving Force.” What this shows us immediately that Rothbard was linking a women’s movement to the impacts of the welfare state, rather than the impact be women’s rights itself. This legion of Yankee women strongly pushed for the right to vote, because they knew that they would be the first to the ballot box, seeing as that Catholic women saw their place as an individual who is the homemaker. The Catholic women would not care about political issues, while the Yankee women would, and the first thing on their agenda was prohibition.

Susan B. Anthony, an ardent women’s suffragist, was also the founder of the first women’s temperance movement. In the early 1870’s, this spurred into a large organized movement, with “Women’s Crusades” taking to the streets. These marches became widespread, but rather than marching against a president, they were marching for dangerous prohibitionist political action. According to Rothbard, though, this wasn’t the end to it, for in the following decade “the WCTU was pushing, throughout states and localities, for a comprehensive statist program for government intervention and social welfare.” These female suffragist movements didn’t want to be able to vote just for the sake of equality. Rather, their goal was political action, most notably prohibitionism, which was disastrous for American society, and the welfare state, which has also had absolutely horrible impacts.

Clearly, Murray Rothbard was not criticizing the ability for women to have equal rights with men. Rather, he was against the political action immediately following the success of these movements. The alcohol prohibition era is looked at fondly by very few, so why are its most staunch historical supporters held in such high esteem? If someone is a supporter of equal rights solely for the sake of the perpetuation of political violence, they are no hero in my book, and neither are they in Rothbard’s.

Moreover, Murray Rothbard’s article titled Against Women’s Lib should be discussed. He opens the article by comparing it to environmentalist movements in that they were both making a sudden surge in the 1970’s. One other similarity should be made clear, and that is why Rothbard opposed them. Murray Rothbard was very against environmentalist movements, not because he hated the environment, but because all of their proposed solutions were phenomenally statist. The same holds true for Murray Rothbard on women’s rights; he doesn’t hate women, but he is against the movement for reasons within the movement itself, not its ultimate goal.

The Women’s Liberation movement at the time was eerily similar to modern feminism in that it is vague and no specific adherence other than a fight against sexism. Today, feminists are the declared enemy of the patriarchy, and it was the same idea in Rothbard’s time. There was a faceless entity of sexist oppression which was being attacked by a mob that had no specific agenda except to defeat it, and whatever happens between point A of the status quo and point B of destroying the patriarchy is acceptable.

Rothbard made the claim that the oppressors are staying strangely silent, attempting to make the point that no institution of oppression exists. The ‘patriarchy’ has never made any official statement. Ever. Because it can’t, for it does not exist.

The similarities to Women’s Liberation and modern feminism do not end there, though. Rothbard faced his own time’s wage gap, which was much larger at the time. At the time, reports were that women only made 58% of what men make, rather than today’s 80%. He quickly made the economic explanation for this occurrence, debunking the idea that it is because of a shadow oppressor.

The strongest attack, though, comes in Rothbard’s defense of capitalism, which is as follows:

It should be emphasized that, in contrast to the Women’s Lib forces who tend to blame capitalism as well as male tyrants for centuries-old discrimination, it was precisely capitalism and the “capitalist revolution” of the 18th and 19th centuries that freed women from male oppression, and set each woman free to find her best level. It was the feudal and pre-capitalist, pre-market society that was marked by male oppression; it was that society where women were chattels of their fathers and husbands, where they could own no property of their own, etc. Capitalism set women free to find their own level, and the result is what we have today.

Clearly, Murray Rothbard has never articulated any disdain for females as a category of humanity. His attacks on the suffrage movement were not based on its goal of the ability for women to be able to vote, but rather, they were well founded on distaste for prohibition and welfare. Furthermore, Rothbard attacked the Women’s Liberation movement for the same reason libertarians widely attack feminism today; Women’s Lib and feminism are ill-defined, turning them into destructive societal forces rife with economic fallacy. These two Rothbardian writings should not be a turnoff when looking for liberty, and Murray Rothbard should not be seen as a sexist woman hater.