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. I'm a CPA who works with a wide range of companies (through my firm K.B.Parrish & Co.); however, we work with quite a few car dealerships, so I'm fairly interested in Fatwin (mentioned in the article). Does anyone have much information on that, or a link to such information? Thanks.

  2. Historically high long-term unemployment, unprecedented labor market slack and the loss of human capital should not be accepted as "the economy at work [and] what is supposed to happen" and is certainly not raising wages in Indiana. See Chicago Fed Reserve: goo.gl/IJ4JhQ Also, here's our research on Work Sharing and our support testimony at yesterday's hearing: goo.gl/NhC9W4

  3. I am always curious why teachers don't believe in accountability. It's the only profession in the world that things they are better than everyone else. It's really a shame.

  4. It's not often in Indiana that people from both major political parties and from both labor and business groups come together to endorse a proposal. I really think this is going to help create a more flexible labor force, which is what businesses claim to need, while also reducing outright layoffs, and mitigating the impact of salary/wage reductions, both of which have been highlighted as important issues affecting Hoosier workers. Like many other public policies, I'm sure that this one will, over time, be tweaked and changed as needed to meet Indiana's needs. But when you have such broad agreement, why not give this a try?

  5. I could not agree more with Ben's statement. Every time I look at my unemployment insurance rate, "irritated" hardly describes my sentiment. We are talking about a surplus of funds, and possibly refunding that, why, so we can say we did it and get a notch in our political belt? This is real money, to real companies, large and small. The impact is felt across the board; in the spending of the company, the hiring (or lack thereof due to higher insurance costs), as well as in the personal spending of the owners of a smaller company.

ADVERTISEMENT