Equal Pay Day Is Based on Faulty Evidence
Every year, like clockwork, Equal Pay Day arrives with the solemnity of a national day of mourning. The media dons black. Democratic politicians take to the pulpit. The statistic is intoned like scripture: women earn just 82 cents for every dollar earned by men. This is meant to suggest systemic injustice—an economy rigged against half the population. It is a claim repeated with the fervor of moral indictment, yet rarely subjected to serious scrutiny. That alone should prompt skepticism.
Let us begin with the simplest question: 82 cents of what? The answer, though rarely advertised, is this: 82 cents of the average wage, across all men and all women, irrespective of profession, education, hours worked, job tenure, or risk. It is an aggregate figure, not a measure of like-for-like compensation. To treat it as evidence of discrimination is like noticing that NBA players earn more than poets and inferring that the National Basketball Association is hostile to literature.
The Department of Labor, in a comprehensive analysis under the Obama administration—hardly a bastion of right-wing apologetics—found that when one controls for relevant variables, the so-called "wage gap" shrinks dramatically, often to just a few cents. And even that small remainder is not necessarily evidence of discrimination. Preferences, priorities, and trade-offs abound in any free labor market. People are not widgets.
Consider that men disproportionately enter high-risk, high-reward professions—construction, oil rigging, long-haul trucking, finance—while women are overrepresented in lower-risk, lower-pay occupations that offer greater flexibility or social value, such as education, administration, and healthcare. This is not patriarchy; it is agency. These are decisions, often made freely, about how to allocate finite time and energy across career, family, and leisure.
Women are more likely than men to reduce working hours or exit the workforce entirely for childrearing. This, too, carries economic consequences. A society that values liberty must accept that free people will sometimes make choices that lead to unequal results. To insist on equal outcomes where choices diverge is to misunderstand both economics and ethics.
But even this generalization hides a more surprising truth. In major metropolitan areas, among younger cohorts, the so-called gap often runs in the other direction. Women under thirty in New York City and Washington, D.C., now out-earn their male peers. In some sectors, this is not anecdotal but statistical fact. Female nurses in New York earn 8% more than male nurses; female secretaries, a staggering 21% more than their male counterparts. These figures rarely make headlines. There is no "Equal Pay Day" to mark disparities that disadvantage men.
A cynic might conclude that the pay gap is less a matter of principle than of narrative utility. When disparities run against progressive storylines, they are ignored. When they confirm those storylines, they are wielded as cudgels. The gap, in this sense, is a rhetorical tool, not an empirical diagnosis.
None of this is to deny that discrimination ever occurs. Of course it does. In a nation of over 330 million, individual bad actors will always exist. But anecdotes do not constitute a structural indictment. To move from the undeniable fact that some women have been underpaid to the sweeping claim that all women are underpaid—by precisely 18 cents on the dollar, no less—is to leap from fact to fiction.
Indeed, the relentless focus on pay gaps may do more harm than good. It implies, falsely, that women are victims in need of protection rather than agents capable of charting their own professional destinies. It encourages resentment where gratitude might be due—gratitude for the vast economic liberties now afforded to both sexes, and for the staggering progress women have made in every field from medicine to law to entrepreneurship.
The underlying logic of Equal Pay Day is one of statistical symmetry. It assumes that if two groups do not achieve identical economic outcomes, something nefarious must be afoot. But equality of opportunity does not guarantee equality of outcome, nor should it. The attempt to engineer statistical parity often undermines the very freedom that makes prosperity possible. It substitutes the moral vocabulary of liberty and responsibility with one of grievance and redistribution.
Moreover, the pay gap narrative is selectively blind. Where is the outrage over male overrepresentation in workplace deaths, in homelessness, in incarceration? Where are the presidential addresses mourning the fact that men account for 92% of on-the-job fatalities? There is none, because these disparities do not fit the pre-approved template of victimhood.
The obsession with gender parity also distracts from more urgent issues. The real threat to economic mobility today is not some phantom pay gap but the stagnation of male labor force participation, the collapse of marriage, and the corrosion of public education. Addressing these problems requires moral clarity and political courage—not hollow rituals of symbolic outrage.
Equal Pay Day, then, is not a celebration of justice. It is an annual pageant of statistical illiteracy. It dresses up crude averages as moral certainties and weaponizes data to advance ideological ends. It is, in short, a farce—and a dangerous one.
A better society does not mandate parity. It honors freedom. It understands that men and women are not interchangeable cogs in a bureaucratic machine, but unique individuals with diverse ambitions, talents, and priorities. The goal is not to make everyone the same but to ensure that everyone is free to be different.
So yes, women earn less than men on average. But averages are not accusations. They are starting points for inquiry, not endpoints for judgment. And when we inquire honestly, we find that the pay gap—that great annual lament of the political class—is not a scandal, but a reflection of choices freely made.
In a world obsessed with equality, let us remember that liberty is the higher virtue. The path to justice lies not in coercing identical outcomes, but in defending the freedom that makes unequal outcomes possible—and meaningful.
If you don't already please follow @amuse on 𝕏.