As we all know, there’s distinct gender inequity in the modern economy. Too few women are in high-paying jobs, and this is the result of misogyny, patriarchy, capitalism, and/or The Man. That there might just possibly be a difference or two in a sexually dimorphic species is one of these things we’re not allowed to mention these days.
Thus the feds, in the guise of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, are to investigate Uber concerning “alleged gender discrimination on issues such as pay.” Or possibly worse: “related to hiring practices, pay disparity and other matters as they relate to gender.” It’s possible to have different views on this. This may be the well-deserved rooting out of that misogyny, patriarchy, and capitalism — Or it’s just another sacrificial lamb to society’s current infatuation. Your choice, obviously.
The part that is going to be absolutely fascinating, though, is what is used as evidence of discrimination. In the general conversation, in the more detailed discourse concerning gender discrimination, it is simply accepted that men and women earning different amounts is all the evidence that is needed of that discrimination. Note that no one is ever saying that people doing the same job are paid differently related to gender — that’s been illegal for decades. If it was happening on any scale, then the courts would be flooded with no-win, no-fee lawyers. Since we don’t see that, we’ve got to assume there aren’t that many, if any, cases.
However, it is true that men and women do receive different paychecks, on average and in general. There’s a slightly different mixture of jobs being done and men tend to gain more promotions to the more highly paid ones. It’s this that is used as that evidence of discrimination.
So, will such evidence be used at Uber to show that there is that discrimination that must be fought and uprooted? Which is where the fascination comes in. For we have excellent evidence that in the entire absence of any discrimination whatsoever we still see a gender pay gap. That evidence comes from Uber’s own records. Men and women doing exactly the same job (driving for hire) with work allocated by an entirely gender-blind algorithm still exhibit a 7 percent gender pay gap. The gap exists because of the preferences of the drivers themselves (length of time they do the job, speed of driving, where and when the driving is done).
That is, there really is a difference in preferences between men and women (as always, on average across populations). The differences lead to different earnings from exactly the same job and exactly the same pay scales. Thus we cannot conclude that a difference in earnings is proof of discrimination, can we?
This is something I do consider fascinating. Are the EEOC investigators looking for that gender discrimination evidence going to be using the currently fashionable nostrums of our times in their proofs, or the actual evidence that we’ve got from the very same subject of their investigations?
Hmm, well, perhaps it’s not so fascinating, though. For we all know which they’re going to choose and it’s not empirical evidence, is it? But then it’s still fascinating that modern society is run upon folk beliefs rather than science, isn’t it?
Tim Worstall (@worstall) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is a senior fellow at the Adam Smith Institute. You can read all his pieces at The Continental Telegraph.
