More Than Meets the Eye in Pay, Hiring Disparities

I have conducted research on the determinants of pay in the labor market, and I, too, have found significant earnings differentials between men and women. Yet I caution the readers of The Times not to draw conclusions from the recent study reported in “Women in O.C. Still Underpaid by One-Third” (Dec. 17) because the analysis is terribly misleading.

It is well known by professionals in this area of research that not much can be learned about earnings disparities by looking only at average earnings across or within fairly broad occupational categories. It appears that The Times study (of U.S. Census Bureau figures) did not make allowances for any male-female differences in overall labor market experience, time on the current job, level and type of educational attainment, overall attachment to the labor force and job type.

Are, for example, female lawyers more likely to be public defenders? Are male teachers more likely to teach science and mathematics? Moreover, there appears to be either an error in reporting or a blatant misrepresentation of the data. The charts accompanying the article lump health professionals (doctors, etc.) into one category and report an earnings differential of $57,256. But the text of the article leads one to believe that this difference is for male and female doctors.

I do not dispute the existence of a gender differential in earnings. The extent to which this differential is the result of labor market discrimination against females can only be assessed after a careful analysis of the data. The Times study has not met this criterion.

ANDREW M. GILL

Associate professor of economics, Cal State Fullerton