She works, he doesn't or does at a female job.
She works, he doesn't
I want your job lady!
I was struck by the similarity of these two articles which both ran the same week. The subtitle of the Newsweek article says it all 30% of working women earn more than their husbands.
What struck me was the similarity of expectations job-wise across all the interviews. If the women was earning more, she couldn't take off time (not even really for childbirth), committed to long hours, and really needed spousal support at home to pull off the tough job. (Behind every good woman is a ....better man?!)
Likewise when men ventured into traditionally female fields, they earned less, however they had a larger return on actual job enjoyment, more flexible hours and less pressure.
Overall some very interesting reading. Although they still quote the famous/infamous women earn 78% of what men earn yearly, they start to get into some of the background behind it. It seems that when a woman truly does commit to a man's course, (longer hours, higher pressure, less family time) they do earn what men do.
Nick
I want your job lady!
I was struck by the similarity of these two articles which both ran the same week. The subtitle of the Newsweek article says it all 30% of working women earn more than their husbands.
What struck me was the similarity of expectations job-wise across all the interviews. If the women was earning more, she couldn't take off time (not even really for childbirth), committed to long hours, and really needed spousal support at home to pull off the tough job. (Behind every good woman is a ....better man?!)
Likewise when men ventured into traditionally female fields, they earned less, however they had a larger return on actual job enjoyment, more flexible hours and less pressure.
Overall some very interesting reading. Although they still quote the famous/infamous women earn 78% of what men earn yearly, they start to get into some of the background behind it. It seems that when a woman truly does commit to a man's course, (longer hours, higher pressure, less family time) they do earn what men do.
Nick
Comments
I also thought this was the key paragraph:
Teachers, like librarians and bank tellers, weren't always primarily female. Men tended to fill those jobs until poor pay, low prestige and small chance for advancement drove them out.
It just shows how misleading stereotypes can be. What is seen as "feminine" often has zero to do with the reality of a job.
Originally posted by trumptman
It seems that when a woman truly does commit to a man's course, (longer hours, higher pressure, less family time) they do earn what men do.
Nick
I didn't read that either... What gives?
Many such couples have simply decided that no matter how much lip service companies pay to ?family friendly? policies, it?s simply not possible to integrate two fast-track careers and kids without huge sacrifices. So they do a cold-eyed calculation, measuring the size and upside potential of each parent?s paycheck, and opting to keep whoever?s is larger. For the highest-achieving women, the trend is striking. Last fall Fortune reported that more than one third of its ?50 Most Powerful Women in Business? have a stay-at-home man (it dubbed them ?trophy husbands?). But this trend reaches women far below the executive-vice-president rank.
It makes it clear that fast-track means they are not family friendly, ie no real maternaty leave, no downtime or sickdays, no jumping off the career path or going part-time. The most powerful women have men who stay home to support them. Are they sexist for this or is the true reality that a job of that magnatude requires forgoing things like flexibility, 40 hour weeks, etc.
After Lewis?s 12-hour workdays, she?s often too beat for spousal conversation. Sometimes Prokop thinks he?s nagging his wife the same way his stay-at-home mom nagged his father.
12 hour day... sounds like longer than a 40 hour work week to me.
The wives of these househusbands have one universal regret: they spend too little time with their children.
Sounds like the family is ignored for job advancement and better pay.
While Jennie works 50 hours a week, Gregg carts their kids to school and works on documentary films (he hasn?t sold anything yet)
Again 50 hours a week = more than full time.
?Quite honestly, I don?t want to stay at home,? McCaskill says. ?I won?t make partner if I?m not working full time?and my earnings potential is higher.?
To make partner, you must put in the hours, not you must be a man. This conclusion comes from the woman lawyer who is having her husband stay home so she can achieve her aim.
The "female" professions tend to offer more flexible hours. Ron Patrizio, 43, a biotech-firm sales rep in Central Florida, got sick of his old routine. He spent much of his time wining and dining doctors, hoping they would prescribe his firm's drugs. He made as much as $67,000 a year, and constantly accompanied clients to operas and hockey games. "But you have no life," he says. "You live and die by how many vials of insulin you sell that month. They expected you to schmooze 24-7." On a whim, he took a class in massage therapy. Men make up less than 20% of the profession, but at the Pinellas Park school Patrizio attended, a third of those enrolled were men. In his first year he earned only $18,000, but the job gave him time to meet the woman who is now his wife.
More hours, more money, have a life... have less money.
His volunteer work as a paramedic attracted him to the medical field, but as the single parent of an 8-year-old boy, he wanted the flexible schedule a doctor doesn't have.
Doctors earn more, but they have more responsibility and less schedule flexibility. Nurses, the opposite is true... even when you are a man.
Morgan, 25, earned his college degree in social work, but when offered a job as a nanny, "I said, 'What the heck, I'll give it a try.'" Three years later, he finds the hours and duties give him the freedom to pursue other dreams, like acting.
Again part time work and flexibility is shown to be tied to lower earnings, not to being female.
Nick
All your examples cite single data points. Obviously a female lawyer earns more than a male supermarket shelf-stacker but does she earn the same as a male lawyer? And do the female shelf-stackers get as much as the males?
I'm fairly certain that (despite welcome gains in recent years) on average the answer is still no.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Yeah, but if men on average are paid more than women for either flexible ('female') or inflexible ('male') careers then you're point fails.
All your examples cite single data points. Obviously a female lawyer earns more than a male supermarket shelf-stacker but does she earn the same as a male lawyer? And do the female shelf-stackers get as much as the males?
I'm fairly certain that (despite welcome gains in recent years) on average the answer is still no.
Well yeah if they are paid more regardless then the point does fail. Duh.
I mentioned this type of information in another thread. You are considered full time when working 32 hours. So a woman or man could be working 32 hours and they would be full-time whereas someone else could be 50-60 hours and they again would just be listed as full-time.
If I work two jobs, one 40 hours and one 16 hours, I am listed as one full time worker and compared to others working as little as 32 hours.
All this happens whether I am a man or a woman.
The last study I read on this was about a week ago. It may have even been a little side article in one of these articles and mentioned that when hours, time off, etc. are factored in and evenly matched, women make 94% of what men make.
However one of the real things to take note of is what happens when the roles are reversed. Do women have to do things any differently than men? It would appear that the answer is no. Many of them find that having a supporting spouse at home that takes care of all the domestic duties and extra day to day issues allows them to focus on and earn more at their jobs.
When the reverse happens, men want to "keep women barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen." When women do it, what do we call it?
Likewise the article shows how society will consider a woman's contributions valid in a number of roles. She can earn money, just stay home, or some combination in between. Men are pretty much chastized unless they are bringing home the dough.
Lastly while I may have mentioned quotes from the article, the Newsweek article did say that 30% of all working women earn more than their spouses and 52% of people surveyed knew a couple in which the woman earned more than her signigicant other. Those are not just single data points.
Nick
For a time the Earps realized that vision. Jonathan earned a six-figure salary as a lawyer at Napster, while Laurie worked leisurely hours as a fund-raising consultant.
do either of them really NEED to work?
Originally posted by trumptman
Those are not just single data points.
Whether an individual women earns more than her spouse has no connection on whether she earns as much as the males in her profession, which is the point I think you are trying to make.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Whether an individual women earns more than her spouse has no connection on whether she earns as much as the males in her profession, which is the point I think you are trying to make.
Likewise I also mentioned that when all the factors are accounted for and they can compare men and women directly as possible that women make 94% of what men make.
We could assume the difference is a) margin of error in the survey b) not accounting for factors not yet accounted for c) sexism.
How much of that 6% would you assign to sexism?
Nick
Women currently earn only 82 per cent of men's rates for equivalent work. Although the gap has closed since 1979, when women on average earned 63p for every pound taken home by a man in the same job, experts argue that 30 years of anti-sex discrimination laws have failed to close it and that more drastic action is needed.
Recent research by the Women's Unit in Whitehall exploded the myth that women earn less simply because they have family responsibilities, showing that even childless females can expect to earn more than £100,000 less than men in the same jobs over their lifetimes.
Jowell's plan will focus on part-time workers, for whom the gap in hourly pay is even wider, and women returning to work after having children.
http://society.guardian.co.uk/career...463213,00.html
I had always assumed the 78% figure being banded about was statistically compensated for job role rather than just adding all men's pay and comparing it to all women's. This ties in with the UK governments figures.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
British figures:
http://society.guardian.co.uk/career...463213,00.html
I had always assumed the 78% figure being banded about was statistically compensated for job role rather than just adding all men's pay and comparing it to all women's. This ties in with the UK governments figures.
Actually when I read that article I didn't see same job expressed by the government officials. It is very important to analyze the writer's understand as well. The terms equivelent and same are sometimes interchanged. For many feminists equivelent means two entirely different jobs that they feel have an "equivelent" value. Same obviously mean the exact same job. The fact that the two terms are interposed a bit makes me wonder if the author fully understood their intent.
To prove I'm not just being a frump, I went to the government site and found an even more current form of the questionaire mentioned in that article.
Salary Survey
When I read it I found it suffered from the types of flaws common in gender surveys. Women are considered full time when working as little as 30 hours per week. The survey spends quite a bit of time attempting to deal with part time work and its effects on women's earnings. When asked why they choose to work part time 40+% of women said to care for children and 30+% simply said it is a preference.
The survey never does get down to same job, same hours worked, same experience, same education, and then ask is it the same pay. It also never checks into second jobs which men are more likely to have.
It is a nice attempt though,
Nick
Likewise I also mentioned that when all the factors are accounted for and they can compare men and women directly as possible that women make 94% of what men make.
you've posted this in a few threads now, but i don't think i've seen a link to it anywhere.
do you have something we could look at to back those numbers up? i've never seen them anywhere, but i'd like to have that as a resource if it's available.
you even quoted text verbatim, but unless there's a resource that's citeable, it doesn't really do much good. (and i'm to cheap to buy the book you were quoting.
Originally posted by trumptman
I went to the government site and found an even more current form of the questionaire mentioned in that article.
Salary Survey
When I read it I found it suffered from the types of flaws common in gender surveys. Women are considered full time when working as little as 30 hours per week. The survey spends quite a bit of time attempting to deal with part time work and its effects on women's earnings. When asked why they choose to work part time 40+% of women said to care for children and 30+% simply said it is a preference.
The survey never does get down to same job, same hours worked, same experience, same education, and then ask is it the same pay. It also never checks into second jobs which men are more likely to have.
edit: I'm not sure if we're at cross-purposes here as it sounds like you're talking about a wage survey but your link goes to a questionnaire for filing a pay complaint. Assuming the main document is what you refer to:
It does do most of those things, even though it is not a survey of general wage trends.
It is a questionnaire for an individual (male of female) who believes someone of the opposite sex, in the same company, doing the same work is being paid more.
It is for setting out their complaint and allowing the firm to respond. It has zero to do with wage surveys and is only tangentially related to the survey results quoted in this thread.
It is called
The impact of women's position in the labour market on pay & implications for UK productivity
Download PDF, 1674k
01/11/02
Sorry about the confusion.
Nick
Originally posted by alcimedes
you've posted this in a few threads now, but i don't think i've seen a link to it anywhere.
do you have something we could look at to back those numbers up? i've never seen them anywhere, but i'd like to have that as a resource if it's available.
you even quoted text verbatim, but unless there's a resource that's citeable, it doesn't really do much good. (and i'm to cheap to buy the book you were quoting.
Perhaps if I get down to Barnes and Noble I will look up the source within the book itself.
But from a common sense perspective, in areas where both men and women could compete equally, can you think of a single employer that wouldn't hire exclusively women if it could save them 25-35% on their labor costs?
Take something we are likely all familiar with, tech support call centers. Most of these train the people working there, they use a lot of scripts, etc. They'll move the job from the U.S. to India or Ireland, but they wouldn't toss out the men and just find a way to keep the women?
Again consider things like, computer programming, support, building and repair. In terms of physical strength or mental ability, most women I know could easily compete against a man. You would think women would flood into this field and that employers would be knocking down the door to hire them, especially at a 25% labor savings.
Yet this field is profoundly dominated by men. It is also an unprotected field that has lots of risks. Most jobs require long hours and have little flexibility. (I need it fixed yesterday) It has a constantly changing skill set. Lastly a lot of tech folks are literally tied to their systems. They have cell phones, beepers, etc. (showing my age there when I know tech guys that had beepers) and must be available whenver there is a problem to be fixed.
I'm sorry to wander so far off, but I just can't think of an area where women could ever compete as easily with men as tech and yet men are 90-95% of the people employed in it. Likewise the money in tech (until recently) was very good, but again long hours, little flexibility, etc.
While I have not found a source online that I feel makes a valid comparision, you or anyone else are welcome to submit any salary survey to this thread that you would like me to read. Perhaps your perimeters for search are not as strict as mine and would turn up results we could still discuss.
You would think it wouldn't be that hard to find studies that compare job to job, experience to experience, etc. Instead I keep finding studies that compare all full-time (32-50+ hours) the same and attempt to compare "equitable" jobs. (plumber to "skilled computer operator" aka receptionist).
Likewise most seem to only compare median annual salary and not any other measure. I mean isn't the best measure, when possible just direct hourly wage for some jobs? (Obviously not salaried jobs)
Likewise consider, is it really important who earns it or who spends it? Most market research indicates that the majority of household funds are spent by the woman.
Lastly the best measure of all would not be salary, but net worth. I know from my own experience that I know people with larger salaries than myself but my investments add to my net worth while others are buying toys. Consider most people's largest asset is their home and who is most likely to get it in the event of a divorce.
Just some different ways to think about gender comparisions.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
But from a common sense perspective, in areas where both men and women could compete equally, can you think of a single employer that wouldn't hire exclusively women if it could save them 25-35% on their labor costs?
No, they wouldn't. Studies have also shown that the taller you are, the more you'll be paid. The human brain can do funny things.
Originally posted by bunge
No, they wouldn't. Studies have also shown that the taller you are, the more you'll be paid. The human brain can do funny things.
So hire short people and save money then.
Or are you really saying that we need a government agency to monitor the earnings of people according to their height?
I have read that especially in jobs where sales are important, that taller and better looking people do make more. Of course they said this was true REGARDSLESS of gender.
SO perhaps we need an agency to counter attractiveness as well...
Kurt... can you hear me Kurt....
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Or are you really saying that we need a government agency to monitor the earnings of people according to their height?
Who said anything about a government agency? You hypothesized that a company would hire more women if they could lower their wages. I'm saying that hypothesis is invalid. That's all.
Originally posted by bunge
Who said anything about a government agency? You hypothesized that a company would hire more women if they could lower their wages. I'm saying that hypothesis is invalid. That's all.
I believe it much more valid to believe that companies take actions to control labor costs than to say that they hire tall people so they can pay them more.
We read daily about the actions companies take with regard to labor costs. Avoiding unionization, moving factories, call centers, etc overseas or across a border, layoffs etc. These actions are much more extreme than just hiring women. Likewise why not do them AND just hire women. The discrepency abroad must be even higher than in the U.S., why hire men at all?
Or is it more likely that, as I have seen in my own experience and as studies have shown, women prefer to work less demanding full time jobs, part time jobs or not at all, especially with childcare concerns.
Is it possible that when she works 24-32 hours a week and he works 40-50 hours a week that he... earns more?!? Is it also possible that this is just choice and not sexism?
Teaching is possibly the most salary neutral profession you can probably enter. When my wife left work to care for our children, she was earning what I earned. When she returns she won't because she will have several years less experience.
When her paycheck reflects this it is not gender bias. It is reflecting the time she took off, not some guys in a back room seeking to repress her.
As it is her current income is listed as zero by the government which means that while getting to stay home and care for our children she is horribly "repressed" because she earns nothing.
Interesting to see what statistics can reflect.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I believe it much more valid to believe that companies take actions to control labor costs than to say that they hire tall people so they can pay them more.
No, actually, if they're both true, then it's not 'more valid' to believe one over the other.
If these studies hadn't accounted for the obvious factors like age, education, job type etc. then other statisticians would have have taken the report to pieces and you would be able to provide a link to a source saying how wrong these figures are.