Why employers should only employ married men

Many social science studies have consistently shown that married men (on average) earn more than either single men or single or married women. In fact, this is the earnings order:

1. Married men
2. Single women
3. Single men
4. Married women

Dr. Warren Farrell documents this in his book "Why Men Earn More" which thoroughly debunks the "wage myth" that feminists use to reinforce their victim status.

The most reasonable explanations for the wage gap are motivation and specialization. Married men, especially with children, are found to be more dissatisfied with their wages and put in extra effort to earn more money to support their families. Single men without children simply don't have the same level of motivation to work, simply because their basic needs aren't being met. They are much more motivated towards other, more fundamental, things instead - like trying to have sex regularly.

Consider the other basic needs. When you are hungry, you can't really concentrate on other things like going to the gym, watching a movie, going to a concert, etc. Likewise if you need to go to the toilet, you can't concentrate on other things. Sex is similarly a basic need that needs to be met just like the other needs.

While work does have a direct relationship with hunger, it has only an indirect relationship with the fulfillment of sexual needs. That is, we satisfy our hunger by working. If we don't work, we don't get paid, and we starve. But most people do not work to get sex. Yes you can work and earn money and spend that money on prostitutes, but for the vast majority of men, such relationships are deeply unsatisfying because this lifestyle is not conducive to having children. Or you could work and earn status and power and wealth and these things increase your ability to get sex, but for most men this is too great an investment to make for a delayed and uncertain reward.

It follows that single men are less motivated to do work, because they've got nothing to work for. To them, life seems meaningless and empty. And they're constantly thinking about sex. They won't admit this of course, yet it's true.

Married men on the other hand, are more motivated because they have a wife and children to care for. Life doesn't seem so meaningless and empty anymore. Also, you don't just have the man's work - you have a woman's work behind it as well. Because a married man is simply more available for work, because his wife frees up significant amounts of his time by taking on domestic responsibilities that the man would otherwise have to do if he was single. In a sense, his wife invests her working potential in her husband's career for mutual gain.

Phyllis Schlafly would often speak at women's colleges in the late 70s and early 80s. She explained to them that even if they worked just as hard, and put in as many hours as their male counterparts, there is one advantage a man has that they'll never have; namely, a wife. And, of course, the response would come back, `Why can't a woman have a house-husband?'. Schlafly would respond, `Good luck finding one'. It's not impossible, but it's very improbable. (1)

If you are an employer, you would be wise to employ only married men. Your second choice would be single men, but only those who are planning to get married and have children in the near future. But if single women are more motivated and hardworking than single men, then why prefer men? Because if these single women are of childbearing age, then they are unreliable and potentially expensive employees - we must assume that they will get married or pregnant at some point in the future and you will have a higher employee turnover or other high costs (maternity leave, job sharing, etc) as a result. If you pass on these high costs to your customers, you will lose business to your more efficient competitors who don't employ women. If you pass on these high costs to your employees, you will lose your best employees to your competitors.

If instead perverse incentives are put in place that makes it "profitable to be inefficient" by penalizing companies that refuse to employ women, and by rewarding those who do employ women, then society as a whole will lose business to more efficient societies. Companies may move overseas, workers may choose to emigrate, etc.

1. Reader reviews of book "The Flipside of Feminism"

Pregnancy: the new "disability"

Just read an article "Pregnant, and Pushed Out of a Job". The author seems to take a lot of things for granted and thinks that women should be entitled to a host of different things:

1. She can be less productive, and still get paid the same as everyone else. When a worker in a company does less work, everyone else has to pick up the slack. So while she's doing less work, everyone else is doing more, and yet everyone apparently should be paid the same.
2. She can keep her job despite there being many other unemployed women out there who are more reliable, who do more work, and who may need the money even more than she does.
3. She can avoid many of the job responsibilities (like heavy lifting and climbing ladders) and thereby shift the burden onto her co-workers, with no reduction in pay, and her employer is also not allowed to fire her.
4. She deserves special treatment because she's a single mother. Even if she deliberately chose to become a single mother. Her employer is to pay the price for the decisions that she has made. Her employer is responsible even if it was beyond her and her employer's control (her husband died or had an injury, for instance).

The author also wishes to blackmail us by saying that if they are not granted all of the above, they will inflict their dysfunctional children upon society by not breastfeeding them. Never mind that breastfeeding should be ideally done for about 2 years.

Then there is the plea for charity: "Pregnancy-related accommodations also promote economic security for families." Why this is should be an employer's problem is never explained.

There also seems to be a bias against hiring women with small children. You don't say!

Apparently, pregnancy is a disability. And this is the only "disability" that the victim deliberately inflicted upon herself.

Depends on the industry, but employing pregnant workers is generally worse for a company's bottom line. Contrary to the author's claims, there is more turnover, not less. There is less loyalty because more-productive workers are being paid the same as those who are less productive, and because they have to pick up the slack for no extra pay. And for obvious reasons, productivity is reduced. Morale is reduced. There are also more overhead costs associated with hiring and firing more workers.

But the problems associated with employing pregnant women aren't limited to the workplace. Employed women don't get married (to men; they get married to the government instead). They choose to become single mothers. Their children don't get breastfed adequately, and get put into daycare. And so on.

There is also the claim that making workplace accommodations for pregnancy results in healthier pregnant women. Ohkay, but making workplace accommodations for dolphins results in healthier dolphins. And making workplace accommodations for non-pregnant workers results in healthier non-pregnant workers. But given a choice between pregnant women, dolphins, and non-pregnant women, why should the employer prefer the pregnant woman?

There are some important voices that are not being heard.

1. What do her co-workers think? Are they inclined to take on additional work (like heavy lifting and climbing ladders) for no extra pay?
2. What does the employer think of the increased costs involved?
3. What do the customers think of  having to pay more because of higher costs associated with employing pregnant women?

There are some things that are impossible to articulate thanks to the climate of political correctness.

1. In a normal family, the man is responsible for earning the money. The woman is never under any obligation to earn money, unless he is disabled and can't work (in which case the family could be eligible for welfare). This idea is not so far-fetched. It was the norm in the stable nuclear family structure of the 1950s and previous.
2. The majority of single mothers today deliberately made choices that resulted in their single mother status. Either they chose to become single mothers, or they chose unreliable men. Only a minority of women are single mothers for reasons truly beyond their control.