Mothers earn less than non-mothers, fathers more than non-

Just in time for International Women’s Day we’ve proof perfect that we don’t in fact have a problem. For we’ve – not that Zoe realises it of course – an insistence that the welfare state is pro-women. Something which is true. So, if the world of employment is slightly anti-women and the welfare state is pro-women then we’re done aren’t we?

However, looking like a good person relative to Jacob Rees-Mogg is not yet enough to make you a feminist. Tories cannot truly be feminist, because their decisions impact women most. When you roll back the duties of the state, whether in paying its public-sector workers or providing social care or a safety net, the resultant burden falls disproportionately on women.

If the burden of reducing the state falls mainly upon women then the benefits of the current state must accrue mainly to women. We’ve thus neatly solved that anti-women bias of the non-state part of the economy.

The usual claim is that there’s a gender pay gap, for full timers, of 9.6%. As has been pointed out again and again this is driven by the different choices of mothers and fathers concerning the arrival of little bundles of joy. OK – but the why doesn’t matter to some, only that an imbalance exists. Fair enough, thus we want to have some balancing item. Enter that state with taxes and benefits.

Men do indeed earn that 9.6% more on average. Given our progressive taxation system they therefore pay more in tax. Given a benefits system which pays more to those on lower incomes, less to those on higher, women gain more from the spending side of that equation. Excellent, we’ve therefore neatly solved the original problem.

Pay and or earnings for men and women may be unequal. But we’re already compensating for this in our tax and benefits system to equalise – perhaps – actual consumption of men and women. This must be so, at least in part, if reducing that state part’s burden falls mainly upon women. Zoe has therefore proved to us that we’re already doing something. Not that she realises it of course, this being male logic, mansplaining even.

We need thus to bring Worstall’s Fallacy into play. The only question left is well, how much more, or less, of this do we need to do? Something which would require accurate calculation of the effects of what we already do. Anyone ever seen that? The imbalance in taxes paid, welfare received, by gender, with a comparison of that to any earnings gap by gender?

No, I didn’t think so, although that is what we need to know, isn’t it?

Support Continental Telegraph Donate

11 COMMENTS

  1. Women have shite jobs which barely cover the expense of paying for, even worse paid, inadequately educated, but maybe well meaning, young women (girls) to look after their children. We have made no progress whatsoever in addressing this nonsensical policy. (Because it IS policy. It may be a default policy but it’s policy) We have, under this policy regime, created no role for ‘manly’ activity which is not criminal, and incidentally not actually manly. There is nowt ‘manly’ about criminality, be it in dealing drugs with menaces, or stealing money through fraudulent insurance and investment devices.

    The alternatives which are obvious are to institute a Universal Basic Income, or a Job Guarantee.

    • Women have shite jobs which barely cover the expense of paying for, even worse paid, inadequately educated, but maybe well meaning, young women (girls) to look after their children.

      Indeed. Upper Middle Class women like jobs that don’t pay much but give them a lot of time away from their annoying housework and boring husbands, where they can gossip and chat with their friends while some minimum wage Working Class girl, usually an immigrant, looks after the children they do not like much.

      We have made no progress whatsoever in addressing this nonsensical policy. (Because it IS policy. It may be a default policy but it’s policy)

      Indeed. We should strongly discourage women from the work force. They should be at home with their children.

      We have, under this policy regime, created no role for ‘manly’ activity which is not criminal, and incidentally not actually manly. There is nowt ‘manly’ about criminality, be it in dealing drugs with menaces, or stealing money through fraudulent insurance and investment devices.

      I don’t think that any Soy Boy has any right to lecture others on what is manly but oddly enough I agree with a lot of that. The first bit anyway. We are demeaning manly roles by letting women do them by dumbing them down. See the Army and Navy.

      The alternatives which are obvious are to institute a Universal Basic Income, or a Job Guarantee.

      There is no point paying people to be idle. It would be better to impose a poll tax. And the only obvious solution is to get more women out of meaningless cubicle slavery and back home, making sandwiches for their husband.

  2. The obvious come back is that we want to close the gender gap so we *need* to end the welfare state. Only when women are *forced* to be self-reliant will they make the right career choices and do more over-time.

    Evolved parasitism is fine as long as it is within the traditional confines of marriage. But when the State takes over the role of husband and provider – forcing men to work at the pointy end of a gun – then we have a problem.

  3. “However, looking like a good person relative to Jacob Rees-Mogg is not yet enough to make you a feminist”

    That’s Zoe Williams, who frequently boasts about having had an abortion, passing moral judgement on father-of-six Jacob Rees-Mogg. 🤔

  4. Tim, because I’m familiar with some of your other work I can guess who Zoe is and where to find the original of the quoted text.
    If I was new to your musings, I wouldn’t have a clue. Are you not in danger of preaching only to the converted here.

  5. Easily Impressed: There’s a link just before the quote. I haven’t followed it because it leads to the Guardian.

    TimW: It’d be a good idea to distinguish links from text. Rollover doesn’t really cut it.

    • Arthur Teacake: I didn’t believe you! I looked again and its not there. I clicked at various points and nothing happened. So I changed to another browser. Still not there. And I clicked on various words and its still not… oh, I’ve got it.

      Bloody hell. Now there’s a novelty, Hunt the Link. That’s going to be fun and a site differentiator 😉

  6. Thanks to the “Transgender” movement we now have a simple and easy solution to the gender pay gap. We simply put tax incentives in place for those on high income to self-identify as Lesbian and the problem will be gone.
    It works the other way round after all, enabling cis-males to stand on women only shortlists.