A quick set of calculations about the pay equity in action:
1. Wage disparity - 17% so:
- man's wages = $100,000/year
- woman's wages = $83,000/year
2. Life expectancy for males: 75.6
3. Life expectancy for females: 80.8 (let's make it 5 years differential)
4. A male and a female both work for 40 years and then retire at the age of 65
5. Tax payments (averages taken from here: nowandfutures.com/taxes.html) 57.7%, even though they are less for our hypothetical woman
6. Inflation rate is taken as zero since that affects both equally but makes the math simpler.
7. Retirement entitlement for both is identical, let's use 50% of the wages.
8. Both hold comparable positions and are employed by comparable employers.
A man will make $4,000,000. W woman will make $3,320,000.
The man will pay $2,308,000, the woman will pay $1,915,640, which makes for $392,360 difference over 40 years which translates into $9,809 difference per year. The take home amounts for men and women are $1,692,000 and $1,404,360 respectively - a $287,640 difference over 40 years, i.e. $7,191 per year.
A man lives 10 more years after retiring so he uses $500,000 from the taxes he paid. A woman lives 15 more years so she uses $622,500, which is $122,500 more in the money she receives during her retirement, even though she paid $392,360 less in taxes that are used to keep her going in the last 15 years of her life.
That also means that man's and woman's respective keep-in-my-pocket amounts over their lifetimes (including retirement period) are $2,192,000 and $2,026,860, i.e. $165,000, or 7.5% difference. This is $3,300 per year (considering man's 40 years of work + 10 years of life in retirement)
The overall retirement amounts show that a man will use 21.6% of what he paid into the system vs. 32.5% for the woman. There is an additional disparity equalizer based on the national scale. Since men to women ration in the US is 0.97 to 1.00 it follows that men pay even more into the system than above calculations indicate, even though they don't get to enjoy extra 5 years of life. Calculations of that would be a little too complex as they'd need to consider much more data so I'll forgo that.
Of course each of the 5 additional years of life has a value, but I won't attempt to translate it into dollars but the question just begs to be asked: would you agree to receive $3000 per year extra and then, being healthy, agree to be euthanized at the age of 75.6 years to keep up (or down) with man's average expectancy?
I'd say for the stinking $3,300 per year, men don't really get such a great deal if, in the US prices, people spend hundreds of thousands to extend their lives by a year or two.
And when we look back into biology, a 60 year old man is still capable of perpetuating the species, while a woman at the age of 60 has been biologically redundant (a burden really) for the last 10 to 15 years on average). Now, how fair is that to men, huh?