IBJNews

Researchers mull reasons behind Indiana's gender wage gap

Associated Press
April 23, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

For every dollar a white man makes in Indiana, his female counterpart pulls in 74 cents.

If she happens to be black, that drops to 62 cents.

Latina? A mere 54 cents.

That startling wage gap, which has remained stagnant for several years, puts the state in the unenviable position of ranking fifth worst in the nation when it comes to equity in women's pay, according to a national report released this month.

"It really is astounding," said Sarah Crawford, director of workplace fairness at the National Partnership for Women & Families, a not-for-profit advocacy group that released the report. "But it's not just Indiana. I can tell you on a national scale, unfortunately, we haven't made much progress."

The national wage gap comes in at 77 cents. A breakdown of the 50 states shows Vermont and California tying for the lowest gap (84 cents) and Wyoming coming in with the greatest (64 cents).

Why Indiana managed to fall so far down on the list is a complicated—and controversial—question that could encompass as many as a dozen factors, from the types of jobs women hold to the job mix in the state to whether women are staying in the workforce or taking breaks to have children.

But at least one Indiana economist believes the ranking has everything to do with the state's demographics.

"Do we have more women with families? Do we have more single women? Do we have women who left to have children? Or do we have women who stayed in the workforce constantly," said Matt Will, a finance professor at the University of Indianapolis. "What is our divorce rate, our education level? This is completely demographically based."

Why it's happening here and nationwide, however, has been one of the biggest debates in the workplace. Some have called it a myth.

"A myth? I doubt that very much," said Jerry Conover, director of Indiana Business Research Center at Indiana University.

While not having seen the data, Conover had his own thoughts on why Indiana ranked poorly.

"My hunch would be that's, in part, because we reflect a different occupational mix within our economy than the national average," he said. "We have more production occupations, a larger percentage of the workforce employed in manufacturing."

A state with a heavy mix of traditionally men's jobs might skew the outcome on the wage gap a bit, Conover said.

The national wage gap has improved slowly in the past four decades. In 1970, for example, women made 58.7 cents for every dollar. By 2000, it had risen to 72.2 cents.

One thing that seems steady is that the wage gap exists among almost all industries: financial, manufacturing, education, health services and government.

There are a few industries, however, that fare better when it comes to pay parity. Leisure and hospitality (84 cents) and agriculture-related industries (85 cents). Performing the best? The construction industry, where women earn 92 cents to every man's dollar, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Indianapolis construction company Shiel Sexton is adamant about bringing more females into the workplace and paying them fairly.

"We want and need women," Vice President Kevin Potter said. "Women typically believe that this is an industry for men only. Women truly have equal opportunity in the construction industry."

Crawford, with the National Partnership, says it's great that the construction industry is leading the way in equal pay. But in the whole scheme of things, it's a drop in the bucket "because so few women are employed in construction," she said.

Crawford said her organization is looking to not just talk about the wage gap but make changes. Its report comes as it fights for Congress to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act.

That legislation, in part, would put gender-based discrimination on equal footing with other forms of wage discrimination and allow women to take legal action for damages.

It also would recognize employers for excellence in their pay practices and prohibit them from retaliating against workers who discuss salaries with colleagues.

"For employers, we hope this is an opportunity to step back and look at the pay system," Crawford said. "Make sure they are not paying women less than men for some non-legitimate reasons."

ADVERTISEMENT

  • not another law
    DO we really need another law? This will only add to check the box paperwork that every business owner has to do because someone somewhere thought it was a good idea. Look women are better multi taskers than men. Prove it. Look at your mothers -managed the kids, the husband, and most of the time a job. I know of more women that are the breadwinners of the family then the men.
    So make another law and it will be more difficult for a father to get his application read because it will have to be filtered through the male female gender. how about this no name and persons applications and resumes speak for themselves. How about that?
  • really another law
    DO we really need another law? This will only add to check the box paperwork that every business owner has to do because someone somewhere thought it was a good idea. Look women are better multi taskers than men. Prove it. Look at your mothers -managed the kids, the husband, and most of the time a job. I know of more women that are the breadwinners of the family then the men.
    So make another law and it will be more difficult for a father to get his application read because it will have to be filtered through the male female gender. how about this no name and persons applications and resumes speak for themselves. How about that?

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. PJ - Mall operators like Simon, and most developers/ land owners, establish individual legal entities for each property to avoid having a problem location sink the ship, or simply structure the note to exclude anything but the property acting as collateral. Usually both. The big banks that lend are big boys that know the risks and aren't mad at Simon for forking over the deed and walking away.

  2. Do any of the East side residence think that Macy, JC Penny's and the other national tenants would have letft the mall if they were making money?? I have read several post about how Simon neglected the property but it sounds like the Eastsiders stopped shopping at the mall even when it was full with all of the national retailers that you want to come back to the mall. I used to work at the Dick's at Washington Square and I know for a fact it's the worst performing Dick's in the Indianapolis market. You better start shopping there before it closes also.

  3. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  4. If you only knew....

  5. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

ADVERTISEMENT