Despite 'Equal Pay Day,' the gender wage gap doesn’t exist

Today, the United States celebrates Equal Pay Day. Started by the National Committee on Pay Equity in 1996, the April date is meant to symbolize how far into the new year women must work to earn what their male counterparts did in the previous year. The day is also always held on a Tuesday to “represent how far into the next work week women must work to earn what men did in the previous week.”

Across the country, businesses are using the day as an opportunity to offer symbolic discounts, such as a 20 percent discount to signify the 20 percent pay gap between men and women, or a 13.51 percent discount to signify the “pink tax” levied on women’s products like toiletries and clothing. Ending unequal pay has been loudly supported by celebrities like Oprah Winfrey and Amy Schumer. However, these efforts are all going to a nonexistent issue. The differences in pay can be attributed to a variety of factors that have nothing to do with gender itself.

Statistics like women earning “77 cents on the dollar” compared to men do not account for the differences in pay for jobs that tend me to be male or female dominated. Of course, if we compare the salary of a female teacher to that of a male account executive it will appear that women make less money, but the driving factor is not their gender, it is their profession. Given this, not only is the concept of “equal pay day” insulting to working women, it wastes resources and takes away from opportunities to advocate for genuine women’s issues, such as domestic abuse.

The discussion of equal pay is not a new one. President John F. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Law in 1963, making it illegal to pay women less than men for the same job. Still, for decades, activists have been bemoaning the alleged pay disparity, certain that it is a result of rampant sexism preventing women from accessing the same professional opportunities.

However, when examining men and women of the same age and educational background in similar positions, it was actually found that women earned more than 97 percent as much as their male counterparts. While that 3 percent may be a result of unfair prejudice or sexist bosses and warrants acknowledgment, it paints a much different picture than the apparent wage gap crisis that warrants a national holiday.

When significant wage gaps do exist, the largest contributing factors are lifestyle choices, not gender.

When significant wage gaps do exist, the largest contributing factors are lifestyle choices, not gender. The highest paying jobs are often those that require long, inflexible hours. These are often the types of jobs taken by those who usually do not have caregiver responsibilities outside of the workplace --- usually men. This helps explain why lawyers, known for their long hours and high pay, have a large gender wage gap but pharmacists, also high-paying but with more consistent hours, do not. Men also disproportionately make up the majority of fields that have associated safety risks but high pay, such as logging, working in oil fields, or construction.

Making the choice to have a child also significantly impacts a woman’s pay. The associated time off, or even the decision to stop working while children are in school, results in a massive drop-off in lifetime earnings.

Women with children earn 20 percent less than their male counterparts over the course of their career. However, this is not a result of rampant sexism, but instead a result of personal tradeoffs made by the mothers in question. Childless women have earnings on par with men’s salaries. While this “mother penalty” may seem unfair, it is a direct result of biology and choice, and not a result of sexism in the workplace.

It is extremely insulting to think that women need to rely on additional legislation to succeed professionally.

The concept of “equal pay day” contributes to sexism by promoting the idea that women cannot succeed on their own, and it’s spreading a dangerous systemic mindset that women need assistance to get ahead: even women studying at Harvard believe that they are being set up for lower wages. Despite already having the law behind them, women enter the workforce with a preconceived notion that no matter how hard they work, they will not be able to “catch up” to their male counterparts.

This does not align with the feminist and pro-female mentality that Equal Pay Day claims to embody. In a country where women are more likely than men to get a college degree, it is extremely insulting to think that women need to rely on additional legislation to succeed professionally.

By raising awareness of a nonexistent issue, Equal Pay Day is not only promoting a defeatist attitude among women, it is taking away resources from issues that truly affect women and deserve national attention --- sexual assault and domestic abuse, for example. While the Equal Pay Law was reasonable to institute in 1963, it’s time to stop pretending that sexism is the reason for the difference in pay, and look instead to the issues that are truly driven by sexism and hate.


Rachel Tripp is a Young Voices contributor and writes about liberty from Washington, DC. Opinions presented here belong solely to the author.

COVID is back! Or that is what we’re being told anyway...

A recent spike in COVID cases has triggered the left's alarm bells, and the following institutions have begun to reinstate COVID-era mandates. You might want to avoid them if you enjoy breathing freely...

Do YOU think institutions should bring back COVID-era mandates if cases increase? Let us know your thoughts HERE.

Morris Brown College

Both of Upstate Medical's hospitals in Syracuse, New York

Corey Henry / Senior Staff Photographer | The Daily Orange

Auburn Community Hospital, New York

Kevin Rivoli / The Citizen | Auburn Pub

Lionsgate Studio

AaronP/Bauer-Griffin / Contributor | GETTY IMAGES

United Health Services in New York

Kaiser Permanente in California

Justin Sullivan / Staff | GETTY IMAGES

There was a time when both the Left and the Right agreed that parents have the final say in raising their children... Not anymore.

In the People's Republic of California, the STATE, not parents, will determine whether children should undergo transgender treatments. The California state legislature just passed a law that will require judges in child custody cases to consider whether parents support a child’s gender transition. According to the law, the state now thinks total affirmation is an integral part of a child’s “health, safety, and welfare.”

We are inching closer to a dystopia where the state, not the parents, have ultimate rights over their children, a history that people from former Soviet nations would feign repeating.

Glenn dove into the law AND MORE in this episode titled, "Parental Advisory: The EXPLICIT plot to control YOUR kids." To get all the research that went into this episode AND information on how YOU can fight back, enter your email address below:

If you didn't catch Wednesday night's Glenn TV special, be sure to check it out HERE!

The Biden admin has let in MORE illegal aliens than the populations of THESE 15 states

GUILLERMO ARIAS / Contributor | Getty Images

There are currently an estimated 16.8 MILLION illegal aliens residing in the United States as of June 2023, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). This number is already 1.3 million higher than FAIR's January 2022 estimate of 15.5 million and a 2.3 million increase from its end-of-2020 estimate. Even Democrats like New York City's Mayor Adams Mayor Adams are waking up to what Conservatives have been warning for years: we are in a border CRISIS.

However, this isn't the same border crisis that Republicans were warning about back in 2010. In the first two years of the Biden administration alone, the illegal alien population increased by 16 PERCENT nationwide, imposing a whopping net cost of $150.6 BILLION PER YEAR on American taxpayers. That is nearly DOUBLE the total amount that the Biden administration has sent to Ukraine.

This isn't the same border crisis that Republicans were warning about back in 2010.

These large numbers often make it difficult to conceptualize the sheer impact of illegal immigration on the United States. To put it in perspective, we have listed ALL 15 states and the District of Colombia that have smaller populations than the 2.3 MILLION illegal immigrants, who have entered the U.S. under the Biden administration. That is more than the entire populations of Wyoming, Vermont, and South Dakota COMBINED—and the American taxpayers have to pay the price.

Here are all 16 states/districts that have FEWER people than the illegal immigrants who have entered the U.S. under the Biden administration.

1. New Mexico

Population: 2,110,011

2. Idaho

Population: 1,973,752

3. Nebraska

Population: 1,972,292

4. West Virginia

Population: 1,764,786

5. Hawaii

Population: 1,433,238

6. New Hampshire

Population: 1,402,957

7. Maine

Population: 1,393,442

8. Montana

Population: 1,139,507

9. Rhode Island

Population: 1,090,483

10. Delaware

Population: 1,031,985

11. South Dakota

Population: 923,484

12. North Dakota

Population: 780,588

13. Alaska

Population: 732,984

14. Washington DC

Population: 674,815

15. Vermont

Population: 647,156

16. Wyoming

Population: 583,279

POLL: Should the Government control the future of AI?

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

Earlier this week, tech titans, lawmakers, and union leaders met on Capitol Hill to discuss the future of AI regulation. The three-hour meeting boasted an impressive roster of tech leaders including, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, and others, along with more than 60 US Senators.

Tech Titans and Senators gathered in the Kennedy Caucus Room.The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

The meeting was closed to the public, so what was exactly discussed is unknown. However, what we do know is that a majority of the CEOs support AI regulation, the most vocal of which is Elon Musk. During the meeting, Musk called AI "a double-edged sword" and strongly pushed for regulation in the interest of public safety.

A majority of the CEOs support AI regulation.

Many other related issues were discussed, including the disruption AI has caused to the job market. As Glenn has discussed on his program, the potential for AI to alter or destroy jobs is very real, and many have already felt the effects. From taxi drivers to Hollywood actors and writers, AI's presence can be felt everywhere and lawmakers are unsure how to respond.

The potential for AI to alter or destroy jobs is very real.

Ultimately, the meeting's conclusion was less than decisive, with several Senators making comments to the tune of "we need more time before we act." The White House is expected to release an executive order regarding AI regulation by the end of the year. But now it's YOUR turn to tell us what YOU think needs to be done!

Should A.I. be regulated?

Can the government be trusted with the power to regulate A.I.? 

Can Silicon Valley be trusted to regulate AI? 

Should AI development be slowed for safety, despite its potential advantages?

If a job can be done cheaper and better by AI, should it be taken away from a human?

Do you feel that your job is threatened by AI?