Not many jurisdictions in the
country have fallen for the fiction that women face institutionalized and
widespread discrimination in pay to explain raw differentials that show men
receive more compensation than women. Proper analysis including all intervening
variables show a
number of factors explain the difference, and when accounted for makes any
differential if not zero or actually favoring women in certain instances otherwise
trivial: differences in occupation choices, hours worked, educational
attainment, taken time off, reliability, and seniority between sexes all
condition the relationship, most if not all ignored inappropriately by
advocates of increasing the use of government to interfere in pay decisions in
trying to justify their views.
The left has deduced that
emphasizing this is not a winning strategy, and so has coined a new term to
describe the difference where it exists that tries to emphasize that there is no
organized effort to reduce women on pay questions to the equivalent of forced
to be barefoot and pregnant: “unintentional” discrimination. It appears to mean
that where differences occur, they are not meant by employers but somehow
magically appear through system irregularities and inefficiencies, and
therefore government must devise mechanisms by which to cancel these, et voilĂ , the evidence witnessed by the pay gap of the phenomenon
of “unintentional discrimination” disappears.