Silly Ladies, Let NRO Explain To You About This 'Paycheck Fairness' Nonsense

Chins up, ladies! The National Review Online is trotting out Carrie Lukas, its Senior Women’s Correspondent, to tell you what to think. Who is Carrie Lukas, you might be wondering? Well, she is a regular National Review Online contributor (mostly about Lady issues) and the managing director and director of policy for the conservative but "non-partisan" Independent Women's Forum. She also wrote a book, called The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism, which (among other things) includes information on "The impossible feminist dream of 'having it all': how women who put their careers first inevitably suffer in their personal and/or family lives" and "Why, even in the modern workplace, women still find paid work less fulfilling than other, more personal activities -- especially marriage and motherhood."

Indeed. Paid work like writing for the National Review Online definitely sounds less fulfilling than other, more personal activities. Regardless, she is now taking to the National Review Online to tell the ladies why their low paychecks are a sign of FREEDOM and LIBERTY and  something about the FREE MARKET. And also, to assure them that their paychecks AREN'T lower than men's, but if they are, it's for a good reason, so not to worry about it.

[The Paycheck Fairness Act] would have encouraged more class-action lawsuits and made workplaces less flexible and efficient by encouraging the adoption of one-size-fits-all compensation practices. Trial lawyers would have been the only real beneficiaries of the Paycheck Fairness Act’s new legal regime. Women who want more job opportunities and greater flexibility should welcome the bill’s defeat.

Even librul ladies love Choices, so why wouldn't you want your employers to have Choices in terms of what they pay you and similarly qualified male candidates? Also, this bill would create "a new legal regime.” Do you really want a “new legal regime”? No. You do not. You know why? Because women don’t even earn less than men in the first place, DUH.

The  Washington Post ’s Fact Checker struck an important blow against the premise of those pushing bills like the Paycheck Fairness Act and the whole “War on Women” notion. Glenn Kessler explored the different data sets behind the endlessly repeated claim that women earn 77 cents for a man’s dollar and concluded:

This brings us to our larger point: Broad comparisons are inherently problematic. As the BLS points out: “Users should note that the comparisons of earnings in this report are on a broad level and do not control for many factors that may be significant in explaining earnings differences.”

So many factors! If the wage gap did exist — which it doesn’t, so don’t worry about it! — it might be from the stupid choices that women make. Or if it did, it would be OK, because it is already shrinking. 

[Kessler] goes on to cite a survey prepared for the Labor Department that showed that once they controlled for other characteristics “much of the hourly wage gap dwindled, to about 5 cents on the dollar.”

Did he? He did not! He referred to a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, which in turn cited a study prepared by the Labor Department, and did not in fact conclude that the hourly wage gap dwindled to 5 cents an hour. Also, the "wage gap" is not the same as the "hourly wage gap"  since the "hourly wage gap" doesn't take benefits, bonuses, or pensions into account. But whatever! Facts, schmact. You can use facts to prove anythign that's even remotely true. And all that is MISSING THE POINT. The POINT, ladies, is that Carrie Lukas is telling you not to worry about it. Because it doesn't EXIST, or if it does, it's not that bad, and anyway, you should have married someone richer.

 [The National Review Online]