Rich liberals on wage inequality.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Patricia Arquette

Remind me never to watch the Academy Awards telecast again. The older I get, the less amused I am watching a bunch of spoiled children congratulate themselves for being good at make believe. Inflicting the Oscars telecast upon myself serves only to raise my blood pressure and ruin my mood.

My hypertension hit a high spike when Patricia Arquette took to the podium to accept her award for best supporting actress. Instead of simply saying, “thank you,” (which would require graciousness that is in ever-dwindling supply among our glitterati), Ms. Arquette took the opportunity to say,

“It’s our time to have wage equality once and for all and equal rights for women in the United States of America.”

I find the irony of a woman who is paid millions of dollars for a few months’ work shrieking about wage inequality almost too much to bear. It’s made worse when you learn in the course of the telecast that each Academy Award nominee was given a “goodie bag” containing items and services having an aggregate value of approximately $180,000 — an amount almost four times the U.S. median annual household income. (Proof again, as if proof were needed, that there is no greater hypocrite in the solar system than a rich liberal.)

But more to the point, the very premise of wage inequality between men and women is fatally flawed. Uninformed libs hang their impassioned cries on census data that says that over their lifetimes, women earn only 78 percent of what men earn. But that’s misleading. Men and women actually are different (as much as liberals and feminists would have you believe otherwise) and those differences have an impact on lifetime earnings.

Declining fertility rates notwithstanding, the majority of women will have at least one child before the age of 45. Even in households with an engaged father and husband, women shoulder a disproportionate share of the child-rearing duties. Not surprisingly, women of child-bearing age gravitate to job opportunities that accommodate their duties as mothers. That accommodation often includes part-time work or a leave of absence from the workforce — both of which have an impact on lifetime earnings.

However, when you directly compare job title, education and tenure, the wage gap between men and women all but disappears. Women who choose not to have children, and who are thus as unconstrained in their career choices as men, will on average earn in their lifetimes nearly dollar-for-dollar what their male peers will earn.

It is also worth noting that according to the latest census data, women under the age of 30 are now earning on average eight percent more than men. We already know that women are now the recipients of the majority of college degrees.

The wage inequality fight is yet another rancid leftover from the 1960s — a time for which liberals have a very special nostalgia. The 1960s are now a half century in the past and yet liberals insist on continually re-litigating the issues of that odious decade.

What do you bet that Patricia Arquette has never heard of Marilyn Hewson or Phebe Novakovic? (What do you bet that not a single person inside the Dolby Theater where the Academy Awards show took place has ever heard of them?) Both happen to be not only CEOs, but CEOs of very macho companies. Ms. Hewson is paid $15.7 million to run Lockheed Martin, the maker of, among other things, F-16 fighter jets. Ms. Novakovic is paid $18.8 million to run General Dynamics, which among other things, makes submarines for the U.S. Navy.

That Ms. Arquette is paid the same kind of money as these two highly capable women to create nothing more than make-believe and yet wails on TV about wage inequality would, taken altogether, be laughable — if it weren’t so cosmically irritating.

Like I said, remind me to miss next year’s Academy Awards telecast.

Paul Gleiser

Paul L. Gleiser is president of Gleiser Communications, LLC, licensee of radio stations KTBB 97.5 FM/AM600, 92.1 The Team FM & KYZS in Tyler-Longview, Texas.

You may also like...

8 Responses

  1. pk says:

    IN addition to the above, let me add some stuff I have experienced. I am a professional woman with an advanced degree. I & all the others working w/ like degrees have had to wait, take over the duties of, & answer the phone for our secretary to come back from the girls room, took over her duties for school meetings, sick child pick-up, dr appts., car not starting,etc., etc..
    We never got more money nor did she get docked. When ever I hear complaints about equal pay I always think of her & how we wordlessly would accomplish her day w/ her multiple hours off.
    We were all paid alike except her, but it was very time consuming to answer her phone & do all the rest.
    Grrr

  2. Just another example of disconnect of liberals from the real world. To paraphrase Our best president (Its amazing the large amount of facts that liberals know that is’nt so)

  3. Linda E. Montrose says:

    I haven’t watched the academy awards in YEARS for the very reasons you mentioned! These people know less of what is going on in the REAL world than anyone! Well, maybe with the exception of obama, pelosi, reid and others of their ilk. These people are so out of touch it is pathetic!

  4. Donna McGrath says:

    I am not a professional, I worked hard most of my life and have seen discrimination in parts of my life. One of the fairest was the U.S.Army, I loved the Army and wish I had stayed in. I have gotten less and found out usually by accident. The worst is being pushed aside so a guy can do the job, and I sit there and watch him mess up three times before getting it correct.

  5. Tom King says:

    I haven’t watched the Oscars in ages. This year I accidentally did. I was working at my desk writing the voice for an artificial intelligence with an emotion chip. My Sweet Baboo was watching TV and fell asleep on the couch. The Patricia Arquette speech was where I hit the power button on the TV. Patricia did accomplish one thing. She lost a potential viewer for her new CSI series. I’m not a big CSI fan although I love NCIS. Because the show was about techno-forensics, I was going to peek in on it. Now? Not so much! It wasn’t that I think women shouldn’t be paid fairly. It’s just the sheer hypocrisy of an overpaid actor whining about fair pay that did it for me.

    Heck, I didn’t need to waste another hour out of my week watching TV anyway. I’ll just stream NCIS on my computer (at least until the FCC decides it’s unfair for me to be able to buy more bandwidth than my neighbor whose too cheap to fork out the extra ten bucks). I remember back when the feds were regulating the tele-communications system. So instead of Ma Bell, now that the cable companies are being declared public utilities and “too big to fail”, they aren’t going to collapse anymore and will become Ma Comcast or Ma Verizon. There goes the last bastion of the free market and idiots like Arquette were part of the false advertising that sold that turkey on behalf of the FCC. Net Neutrality my fuzzy butt! Wonder how long it will take the FCC to figure out how to tax Internet users? I remember when they regulated the phone system. In 50 years Ma Bell gave us automatic dialing and push button phones. You had to have a limo to carry around the equipment for a “mobile” phone and long distance calls could run $5 a minute or better. I also remember how soon after they deregulated and broke up Ma Bell before we had cell phones you could stick in your pocket, 10 cents a minute long distance and calls so quiet you could “hear a pin drop”. Lily Tomlin lost a great bit after deregulation and when they remade Fun With Dick and Jane, Jim Carrey wasn’t able to reuse the scene where Dick and Jane rob the phone company and get a standing ovation from customers in the lobby. Other than that, deregulation was all good. So now the FCC is going to bring the government’s magic touch to the Internet, probably the last bastion of the free market left on the planet.

    To add insult to injury my Republican Congressman up here in Washington State was all for it. I could just weep….

  6. Ed says:

    I wonder how many guys working on Arquette’s movie (ie, stuntmen, drivers, caterers, cameramen, ‘best boy’, ‘grips’, whatever…) got paid what she was paid? Are these silly libs really this stupid? They can’t think more progressively than a first grader? I wonder how many movies would actually be made if everyone was paid the same….

  7. Fact-check, amigo:

    RE “a woman who is paid millions of dollars for a few months’ work:”

    Arquette’s Oscar-winning performance was in a story filmed over TWELVE-YEARS.

    =========================

    Editor’s response amigo:

    From an official Boyhood publicity release: “The cast and crew gathered once or twice each year, on varying dates, to film for three or four days.” (Emphasis added.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *