Sherrod Brown, Beta Male
Mrs. Sherrod Brown, better known as Connie Shultz, wrote this week about so-called gender income-inequality. Do you get the sense she is telling us about why she fell in love with Senator Brown?:
The memory of my parents’ struggle over who controlled the money hit me last week like a rough ride through a time tunnel after the Pew Research Center reported on the rise of the breadwinning wife. More wives are out-earning their husbands, in part because more of the lost jobs in this current recession belonged to men. But more women are getting college degrees, too, and pursuing careers. The equation of marriage is changing. As Pew reported, in 1970, 4 percent of husbands had wives who made more money. In 2007, that number rose to 22 percent.
Oh, boy. Lots of coverage about the “mancession” and “alpha wives” vs. “beta husbands.” You’d think the overwhelming majority of women were now out-earning the men folk, and in their spare time lopping off vital male anatomy just for sport.
Of course, income disparity between genders has been a serious issue for a long time. Most women still make less than men, even in comparable jobs. But the public hyperventilation over the Pew report illustrates how too many of us — men and women — are burdened with a traditional definition of manhood.
Most men, it seems, still determine their worth as human beings by the number of zeros in their take-home pay. Some women buy into this; others don’t. Hence the latest flurry of stories and blogs about high-earning women insisting their husbands must make more than they do, or lamenting that they can’t find men who make less and don’t care.
Maybe I’m reading too much into this. However, Sever held a job in his life, continued being a pot head long after his days at Yale, and… uh, oh yeah his name is “Sherrod.”
Connie, as a true product of the 60s, is still still campaigning for blurring the lines between men and women. Considering how depressing and negative her columns always are,
But if Connie is truly worried about income inequality, she will join me in opposing the Lilly Ledbetter law and other rules against workplace discrimination. Why? Because they make the expression of discrimination costless. But when market is left alone, discrimination becomes extremely expensive.
The late Milton Friedman explains: