Yes, the Pay Gap Persists
Mark Perry and Andrew Biggs, economists at the American Enterprise Institute, argued recently that no pay gap exists between men and women after you control for the different choices they make. The story of a woman who is paid less than a man she is exactly alike, they claim, is false.
I took issue with this argument in two posts. When I actually ran the numbers, I found a persistent pay gap on the order of 4 percent to 10 percent
, accounting for a battery of things -- frankly, everything that I could think of, and everything labor economists usually consider -- occupation, work experience, education, race, marital status, children, union membership, geographic location, and weekly hours. And I also wrote
that it's probably wrong to take all these things as unaffected by pressure or discrimination.
Perry responded last week in a post
I somehow missed. It's worth a follow-up. "What if gender discrimination could be completely eliminated, would there still be a gender wage gap for reasons not related to discrimination against women by employers?" he writes. He argues that the pay gap might persist because of gender differences in risk tolerance. Men might take on higher-risk jobs, such as in oil drilling, and receive what's called a compensating wage differential
. Perry also suggested that the gender gap might persist because professional athletes and musicians are paid well and tend to be men.
Sadly, his argument makes no sense. Let me explain why.
1. My regression has "fixed effects
" for occupation. This means that it fully accounts for any occupation-level compensating differentials for risk. So everything Perry and Biggs
write about men dying in forestry, or what have you -- yeah, my analysis accounts for that. That's what a fixed effect is.
2. My analysis is of workers paid hourly wages. Professional athletes and musicians are not hourly workers. So this can't possibly explain the pay gap.
Look, I understand why Perry and Biggs have to respond to me and Matthew Yglesias, who riffed
on my data analysis for Vox, where I am also a contributor. They misrepresented the research consensus
on the gender pay gap in a major newspaper, and I called them out on it.
I would agree with them that the 23-percent number reflects more than discrimination. But if they are going to try to explain away the pay gap, they're going to need to try a bit harder than this. I would know: That was the point of my original post, to see if I could entirely eliminate the pay gap with controls. I couldn't. I easily could make it small, as it surely is, but in the process of spending hours on the data analysis, I grew convinced it was real.