Why Men Make More

WHY MEN MAKE MORE

First, let me start this composition with a short disclaimer by saying that I am all for women’s rights in the workplace, and that this is simply an account of an argument presented to me many years ago by an unnamed source. Though, it is an argument in which there is no apparent flaw in logic. The previous is not saying that I share the same opinion.

It takes the form of an anecdote:

I have a friend, who need not be named and has long since moved away, that was once entertaining me in a battle of wits about certain affairs that are of no importance, when a subject that, to some, is of utmost importance arose: Why men make more in the workplace than their women counterparts. My friend presented an argument with which I couldn’t disagree at the moment. And so it goes:

He said that men should make more because a man is a better investment for the future of a business, and that if he owned a business he would absolutely hire a man over a woman and maybe even pay him a little more, especially in an upper-level position, because of this reason.

I’ll elaborate. Let’s say you have a man and a woman applying for the same managerial position that pays 100k a year (I know its high, but it gets the point across). They are both young, have the same credentials, and are basically equal in every way. Despite this, my friend claims the man should be hired over the woman. This is because the basic fact that, statistically, most women have children. Note that this argument does not apply to lower level or positions that are temporary. I am talking about careers here. Also, because of the nature of this argument, it only really applies to woman of childbearing age. So, if you hire the woman for the job, she spends 5 years learning the business, and then has a child, one of two things can happen.
 

1) She takes a paid leave for 3-6 months, where you still have to pay her salary* (100k), and on top of it pay her replacement, lets say, a fourth of her wage (keeping in mind that it could cost more), for that time, because somebody has to be there to do her job. So that year costs you, in this model, 125k, and for 3-6 months of the year a less qualified person is in her position. So not only does that year cost you more in wages, it is possible that a sub par job was done by her replacement, which could reduce revenue for your company and result in even more loss. Now, again statistically, most women have more than one child, so you might have to repeat this process more than once.

Then there is option 2: She quits and becomes a mom, which isn’t that uncommon these days. In this option, you just spent 5 years teaching your employee the ins and outs of the business and now they are gone and you have to start over again at zero.

So now whom would you, the business owner, rather have now? An employee (male), that will definitely work without subjecting you to the risk of them leaving, and maybe even pay them a little more because of the added security. Or an employee (female), who may quite possibly cost you upwards of 50k or more in the coming years. The choice is obvious.

* Note, maternity leave laws differ state by state, but the FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) gives basic rights to all mothers taking maternity leave. It guarantees mothers at least 60 days of maternity leave, and states that an employer does not have to pay for maternity leave provided they meet the requirements. It also says that employees can substitute paid leave (like vacations or sick days) for unpaid leave.  If there is a hole in this argument it would be here. But we are keeping in mind that some employers, especially bigger companies like in this model, give full compensation for at least the first few weeks of leave if not more. Also, we are keeping in mind that women can save up their paid sick days and paid vacation days to use after the first couple weeks when their employer stops giving full compensation for their maternity leave. In this way, assuming the mother has used the previously discussed resources to receive the best possible compensation for her time off, it is very likely that her employer will end up paying her very near 100% of her wages during her maternity leave. Now this all depends on how long an employee will receive full compensation for maternity leave, and how many paid sick and vacation days a year they get. These can vary, but for the position described (100k a year), it isn’t unreasonable to assume good benefits: maybe 60 days paid leave and at least 2 weeks of vacation coupled a number of sick days. Maybe 50% pay after that. The argument assumes the least amount of compensated time under these conditions: about 3 months paid maternity leave.