The whole gender wage gap issue tends to set me off, as it is filled with "lies, damned lies and statistics" and half the arguments seem to exist in a fairy tale world, so this may get a little ranty, but I'll try to keep it on the level:
OF COURSE THEY DO! As someone born in the 1980s, the gender norms of the previous generations had already been blown away. Schools are filled with female teachers, administrators and policy makers. The bias inherent in the system is already in favor of females, and yet we pile on extra focus and opportunities for girls at every level from kindergarten through college. We celebrate every female accomplishment while any sign of male over-achievement is viewed as being a manifestation of discrimination.
Today, women are more likely to graduate high school, get a phD, go to law school, go to medical school. Less likely to go to jail. How is anyone surprised when women therefore end up making more money? The horribly flawed, over used statistic about women making less than men has been shown many times to be due to hours worked, aggressiveness in pursuing promotions and raises, and other similar factors.
To compensate for women born before the 1970s getting the short end of the stick, our culture has given girls born in the '80s and later every possible advantage. This news article isn't shocking, surprising, or novel - it was inevitable.
There were always a lot of women in education. Just think, not too long ago the most viable career opportunities for women were homemaker, typist and teacher. Apparently, though, women have taken up an even higher % of teaching positions relative to men in recent years.
I dunno if that statistic you're citing is that horribly flawed. Remember, the top end of the income scale is still operating on prior generation norms, or at the least has only very recently changed. It certainly wasn't operating that way in the 1980s. Given the income inequality, the averages probably still work out in favor of men.
Depends on the country doesn't it? In some European countries younger women employees are dangerous because they might go off and get pregnant (companies are legally required to keep their job available).
It's not necessarily good news for women. They've talked a lot about the benefits to higher education levels amongst young women, but how much of it is down to a simple selection effect: women that are intelligent, ambitious and career-minded are more likely [quite possibly through choice] to be single and childless in their twenties? Men that are intelligent, ambitious and career-minded don't necessarily need to make the same sacrifices, hence a male cohort of single, childless twentysomethings being quite possibly less valuable to employers than the male one. It's even conceivable that young, single childless women might be both earning more than their male counterparts and still being underpaid relative to their capabilities.
You seem to have a preconceived notion on the way the world works: Woman get paid less than men. But when encountering data that would imply the contrary, instead of simply correcting your premise, you rework the analysis of the data in a convoluted way, in order that you keep your preconceived notion about how the world works: "Woman should really be earning even more, but because of prejudices they are only earning x more than men."
"How much of it is down to a simple selection effect: women that are intelligent, ambitious and career-minded are more likely to be single and childless in their twenties?"
I don't remember the percentages offhand, but a lot of the reason unmarried women do better is because marriage creates a monopsony for women. Basically employers have to pay less to hire women because their BATNAs are only local instead of national or global.
The pay gap that most people care about is that women earn less than men who do the same job. Because men tend to work different jobs than women, this statistic is not particularly interesting to me.
(For those unfamiliar, this law would have encoded the notion of "comparable worth" into law. Comparable worth is the notion that entire fields/job categories are underpaid due to sexism.)
I don't think the famous "women make 76 cents on the dollar compared to men" statistic was ever for the same job. I would be interested to know a better quality statistic (I seem to remember a study or two that put it at only a couple of cents, controlling for profession, experience, and etc).
This made me think. Could the pay difference be because men work more hours? There are more woman with children with part time jobs vs men with children. This is just a thought.
on NPR they said that only 2 areas still see male dominance - janitorial and computer engineering. Looks like cleaning somebody's mess up is a real macho thing.
Yes, it does. There have been some studies on the black community where the women would rather remain single mothers than to marry. The logic being that men become an expense.There are also studies that show that divorce is much likelier in cases where there are no male children or the woman makes more than the man.
I think they took an even more granular approach. Thats what the 'young, single, childless' stuff was about. They were comparing people who fit all those categories.
"Their research shows that a woman earns 5 percent less the first year out of school than a man who goes to the same college, gets the same grades, has the same major, takes the same kind of job with similar workplace flexibility perks, and has the same personal characteristics, such as marital status, race, and number of children."
It could be that not all of the gap is explained by sexism. The overall educational attainment of women is greater than that of men despite the lack of a difference in average general intelligence between the two groups. It could be that a man who goes to the same college, gets the same grades, and has the same major as a woman is slightly more intelligent than his female counterpart. It's thought that male SAT scores are higher than female SAT scores mainly because fewer males take the test (since fewer males are college-bound).
Naturally I don't argue that there's no discrimination in the workplace. For example, unconscious attitudes on the part of employers that a male worker is "providing for his family" would create a pay gap even if overt sexism is uncommon. My point is that it's misleading to say that this study determines how much of the gap "cannot be explained by anything except the person's gender" as the article writes.
The article makes a good point about salaries after college but what about the fact that there is a growing gap between men and woman going to college? This is completely glossed over during the article.
When there's a labor market, being male or being female is going to be a factor in your desirability in that market, since it's, at the very least, a marker for other characteristics. Same with race or even height.
It's certainly a problem if the disparities get too large.
Now, the question is, how one can determine what is "too large"?
Young, Single, and Childless I get. But the under 30 part simply seems to suggest that men start off paid slightly less, but then take off over their career. IMO, that appears to be really bad news for women.
BTW, were they comparing all men to young/single/childless/under 30 women or was it men with similar socioeconomic position?
[+] [-] yalurker|15 years ago|reply
OF COURSE THEY DO! As someone born in the 1980s, the gender norms of the previous generations had already been blown away. Schools are filled with female teachers, administrators and policy makers. The bias inherent in the system is already in favor of females, and yet we pile on extra focus and opportunities for girls at every level from kindergarten through college. We celebrate every female accomplishment while any sign of male over-achievement is viewed as being a manifestation of discrimination.
Today, women are more likely to graduate high school, get a phD, go to law school, go to medical school. Less likely to go to jail. How is anyone surprised when women therefore end up making more money? The horribly flawed, over used statistic about women making less than men has been shown many times to be due to hours worked, aggressiveness in pursuing promotions and raises, and other similar factors.
To compensate for women born before the 1970s getting the short end of the stick, our culture has given girls born in the '80s and later every possible advantage. This news article isn't shocking, surprising, or novel - it was inevitable.
/end rant, goodbye karma
[+] [-] jbooth|15 years ago|reply
I dunno if that statistic you're citing is that horribly flawed. Remember, the top end of the income scale is still operating on prior generation norms, or at the least has only very recently changed. It certainly wasn't operating that way in the 1980s. Given the income inequality, the averages probably still work out in favor of men.
[+] [-] nodata|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notahacker|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Yzupnick|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Alex3917|15 years ago|reply
I don't remember the percentages offhand, but a lot of the reason unmarried women do better is because marriage creates a monopsony for women. Basically employers have to pay less to hire women because their BATNAs are only local instead of national or global.
[+] [-] baix|15 years ago|reply
A stereotype, yes, and not always true, does anyone not believe this to be generally true?
Basically, what they are comparing is the average earning power of all women against the average earning power of poor men.
What I'm interested in is the average earning of men young men and women, irrespective of marriage or number children.
[+] [-] erikpukinskis|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yummyfajitas|15 years ago|reply
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1338
(For those unfamiliar, this law would have encoded the notion of "comparable worth" into law. Comparable worth is the notion that entire fields/job categories are underpaid due to sexism.)
[+] [-] jacoblyles|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] imesh|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] VladRussian|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gaius|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hugh3|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zacharycohn|15 years ago|reply
Assuming that the article was written well, I would assume that they are referring to the average young, single, childless man.
[+] [-] ronnier|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sin7|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghurlman|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacoblyles|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] awakeasleep|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 27182818284|15 years ago|reply
http://www.slate.com/id/2266148/
[+] [-] m-photonic|15 years ago|reply
It could be that not all of the gap is explained by sexism. The overall educational attainment of women is greater than that of men despite the lack of a difference in average general intelligence between the two groups. It could be that a man who goes to the same college, gets the same grades, and has the same major as a woman is slightly more intelligent than his female counterpart. It's thought that male SAT scores are higher than female SAT scores mainly because fewer males take the test (since fewer males are college-bound).
Naturally I don't argue that there's no discrimination in the workplace. For example, unconscious attitudes on the part of employers that a male worker is "providing for his family" would create a pay gap even if overt sexism is uncommon. My point is that it's misleading to say that this study determines how much of the gap "cannot be explained by anything except the person's gender" as the article writes.
[+] [-] sp332|15 years ago|reply
kidding, maybe
[+] [-] nkassis|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joe_the_user|15 years ago|reply
When there's a labor market, being male or being female is going to be a factor in your desirability in that market, since it's, at the very least, a marker for other characteristics. Same with race or even height.
It's certainly a problem if the disparities get too large.
Now, the question is, how one can determine what is "too large"?
[+] [-] gaius|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sin7|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kenjackson|15 years ago|reply
BTW, were they comparing all men to young/single/childless/under 30 women or was it men with similar socioeconomic position?
[+] [-] jhuckestein|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trustfundbaby|15 years ago|reply
Since college gives you a $6k bump (or so) in earnings per year afterwards ... its stands to reason that would be reflected in the numbers.
There's a much longer and involved article that breaks down the entire thing more, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-...