Although I had registered this blog some time ago, only now am I posting something in it.

I’ve simply not had the time, I had opened my own business for more money and freedom and have failed to realise either of those goals yet.





To opening the batting, I want to talk a little bit about the Gender Pay gap which supposedly occurs in western nations whereby men earn, on average, anywhere from 5-25% more than women for the “same job”. This post will not be thorough but I assure you – my yet to exist readers – that there will be more to come on this issue (so view this as a part of a series).

It is the common mantra of feminists that women are subject to gender discrimination in the form of the pay gap. They claim men keep women down and men are still ‘patriarchal oppressors’ who favour other men in terms of career and financial advancement in the work place. It is this and this fact alone that explains the “pay gap”. But If this were true then, why hire men who will cost your firm so much more in wage costs? (Wages and salaries being the most significant expense item for nearly all entities).

Dr. Warren Farrell has asked the same question and he states that it is simply not economically rational to do so, as hiring women over men is an instant 5-25% saving in salaries and wages expenses.

To explain why it is not economically rational to hire men over women, here is a Supply and Demand model of the theoretical market for male and female labour.

Lets say for the sake of argument that firms needed an output (Qty) of 12,000 units.

To hire men to produce output 12,000 it would cost $1.20 (1.2 * 12,000) = $14,400.

To hire women to produce the same output it would only cost $10,200.

(At $10,200 men would only produce 9,900 units – 2,100 units less than needed).

The total cost of women at $10,200 represents a 41% saving by hiring only women to make the fixed output of 12,000 units. Women will make the same amount of goods/services but for much less – why the hell would you hire men? It’s like going to a restaurant and having the waiter say “would you like to pay $50 or $70 for the main you ordered?” you simply wouldn’t say “put me down for paying the highest price possible please.”

So the argument of male favouritism holds no weight because in a market economy, not producing at the lowest-cost method is said to be “productively inefficient” in that you’re not using your resources in the correct mix. Any one of the many firms out there can simply hire more women and price the “patriarchal chauvinist pigs” who hire expensive men and give each other big raises out of the market.

Yet this has not happened, simply because in real terms men do not make more than women for the same work. If they did these “man-friendly expensive firms” would close-up as “women-friendly cheap firms” would be able to sell the same product to consumers for one quarter of the price. In a market economy people vote with their feet. Consumers would have ensured women dominated the work place by buying only the cheaper woman-made products. This has not happened so it looks very likely that the pay gap is perceived and not entirely real.