Whoa: Women Have To Have A PhD To Make As Much As Men With A BA

[Playinghardball]

Source: MoveOn.org

Click on the image to enlarge it.



http://front.moveon.org/whoa-women-have-to-have-a-phd-to-make-as-much-as-men-with-a-ba/

[seabeyond]

1. thanks for the info. nt

[Lance_Boyle]

2. Went to read TFA, but there is no 'there' there.

No methodology, no text - just a graphic. Not really confidence-inspiring as far as backing up the claim.

That said, I have yet to hear a cogent argument as to why a woman who chooses to sit out a portion of her career to stay home and raise kids should expect to rejoin the workforce at the same pay rate as women or men who do not so choose. There are months if not years of effort and experience to be accounted for.

[Scout]

4. many women don't do that, yet they still make less money than their male counterparts n/t

[kick-ass-bob]

59. I agree with him to the point that there is no meat to the pic

A graph with no knowledge of what it has taken into account and what it is saying is worthless.

I stop agreeing with him at that point, as it is well known that there is a substantial inequality.

[frazzled]

8. Wow, and they call this a progressive board

Women's rights and equality should be a base-line factor in defining a progressive stance, yet so often we get either Neanderthal views or shrugging of shoulders on this subject. And often we get parroting of right-wing talking points.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. Adjust for the careers chosen, the hours worked and the time in the career.

And we'll have a graphic worth talking about.

[Pithlet]

18. I know.

You can expect the "Well, this discrepancy can be explained by blah blah privilege privilege blah blah privilege blah privilege blah" every time. It's a shame.

[Yupster]

115. My wife and I are good examples

We both have MA's in Education.

I left teaching and started my own business.

My wife stopped working when we had our kiddo.

Over a decade later we would show up disastrously on your chart.

Male and female have identical educations yet male makes over 10 times what female makes.

Of course situations like mine are not the same for everyone, but they sure do skew the chart.

[demmiblue]

10. Here you go:

This is the study done by the Georgetown University Center on Education and Workforce:

http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/collegepayoff-complete.pdf


It only took two clicks to find.

[demmiblue]

12. A quote from the study:

“The findings are stark: Women earn less at all degree levels, even when they work as much as men. On average, women who work full-time, full-year earn 25 percent less than men, even at similar education levels. At all levels of educational attainment, African Americans and Latinos earn less than Whites.”

[SharonAnn]

13. I never "sat out" and still made less than my male peers, though I was often top performer.

Of course, I didn't realize that until later since we weren't allowed to talk about salaries and the men certainly didn't share their information with women.

I did get better at negotiating my salary over the years, but I checked on things and I was never paid the same as men doing the same job. It was usually bout 20% - 25% less. One time it was only 5% less, but that was an anomaly.

I have worked full time since 22, and part-time before that. I have a degree in IT and an MBA. I have worked more than 40 hours a week, traveled a lot on my jobs, and relocated with the company as opportunity or the company's need presented themselves.

And, I was often the top performer.

Bu, they could pay me less, knowing that I probably wouldn't find out, so they did. Simple as that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. It has NOTHING to do with having children

and by the same token males are paid more since they are "bread winners." Care to have a stereotype much?

[lumberjack_jeff]

54. How could "lifetime earnings" not be affected by a sabbatical in the middle? n/t

[jtown1123]

65. Why not look at women who only took the 3 months off? Those 3 months can't make a big dent like that

[lumberjack_jeff]

71. Why not? That's a rhetorical question, isn't it?

The "study" was constructed the way it was, to lead to the implications it produced.

If the authors were to correct for anything, they'd get useful information but smaller headlines.

I think we all know that teachers are paid less than steelworkers.

[hfojvt]

110. I am really amazed that they came up with over $1 million

for the earnings of men with less than a high school education.

I mean, here I am with a Master's degree, almost 50 years old and I have only made $282,480. On the off chance that I make $20,000 a year for the next 13 years that would only get me to $542,480, making me about $500,000 less than the average? of a high school drop out.

Maybe that's because my boss's boss is a high school drop out. But SHE did get a GED, so I wonder if that still makes her a high school drop out.

[Yupster]

116. It's not just the three months either

Women with kids will sometimes not go for promotions that will mean more time away from home. In sales jobs, they will sometimes turn down better paying jobs that require out of town travel. Even teachers will turn down coaching jobs because they need to pick up their own kids from school at 4:00.

None of these things are universal, but they all skew the charts.

[Honeycombe8]

122. Taking a sabbatical from work usu. affects salary, no matter the reason.

And regardless of length of sabbatical. While she's out for three months, someone else is doing her job for her, and someone else is making $$$ for the company. How much of a difference it makes, I don't know.

If I do someone's job for her for several months, and then she comes back...at the end of the year, I don't expect her to get the same raise that I get. And further, all things being equal, she will forever get paid less than I will at that company, unless I too take a several month sabbatical from work. Of course, in the real world things aren't equal.

[CreekDog]

93. let's face it, you will argue anything to convince people that men not women suffer pay inequity

:eyes:

[Honeycombe8]

124. You're not looking at reality. Imagine it from a appliance repair shop owner perspective.

You have two repairers...one takes off for several months. The other does not, and does not only his job, but also the job of the person who took sabbatical leave.

You give a raise at the end of the year. You are going to give a bigger raise to the one who worked the full year.

The next year, both workers work the full year. You give equal raises that year. But the sabbatical worker is STILL behind in the pay scale because she got a lower raise the year before. So unless the OTHER worker takes off for several months, those two workers will stay at an unequal pay scale...the sabbatical worker getting paid less.

She's getting paid less because she is worth less to you, the owner. She might be a wonderful worker, reliable, skilled, etc., but one year she cost your business money for several months, which you have to take into account in determining a worker's worth in pay scale. You either had to pay OT to the remaining worker, or maybe you had to hire a temp.

This is a reality regardless of gender of the one taking a sabbatical. This is partly what makes our country, and other countries, great. We have the ability to get ahead and get paid more, if we work more. Just like your appliance repair shop...the more work your shop does, the more YOU get paid. If you shut your shop down for awhile, you will make less money that year.

[librechik]

26. The study comes from HERE:

Georgetown’s Center on Education and the Workforce, which notes that, when it comes to lifetime earnings, women with a Ph.D. make as much as men with a B.A., while men with some college but no degree make about as much as women who have completed college:

http://kaysteiger.com/2011/08/05/chart-of-the-day-the-most-depressing-pay-gap-statistic-youve-seen-today/

as noted in the accompanying text

[taught_me_patience]

29. The study needs to account for the mix of professions between male and female

at each education level. I'm suprised a study of such shoddy statistics came from Georgetown.

[librechik]

30. I guess you forgot to read this part of the study on page 6 where they explain the differences

"Despite a general earnings boost conferred by a degree, earnings vary greatly depending on the
degree type, age, gender, race/ethnicity, and occupation of an individual. Th e fi ndings are stark:
Women earn less at all degree levels, even when they work as much as men. On average, women
who work full-time, full-year earn 25 percent less than men, even at similar education levels. At
all levels of educational attainment, African Americans and Latinos earn less than Whites. For
example, African Americans and Latinos with Master’s degrees have lifetime earnings lower than
Whites with Bachelor’s degrees.
But variations are not just among people of diff erent degree levels or by gender or race/
ethnicity. In spite of the obvious returns to more education, the job someone is doing — their
occupation — also matters when it comes to earnings. In fact, there is a wide variation in earnings
by occupation even among people with the same degree. For example, fi nancial managers with
a Bachelor’s degree earn $3.1 million over a lifetime, while accountants and auditors with a
Bachelor’s make $2.5 million.3 Clearly, these diff erences are driven by the occupations, not
only by educational attainment.
But that’s not all — earnings also vary within the same occupation by education level. For
instance, truck drivers with less than a high school diploma make $1.3 million over a lifetime,
compared to $1.5 million for truck drivers with a high school diploma. Elementary and middle
school teachers with a Bachelor’s degree make $1.8 million over a lifetime, compared with $2.2
million for those with a Master’s degree.
Finally, some people with lower educational attainment earn more than their more highly
educated counterparts as a result of occupational diff erence. We call this concept ‘overlap.’ For
example, customer service representatives with an Associate’s degree make $1.4 million over a
lifetime, while high school graduates who are supervisors of production workers make $1.8
million over a lifetime. In fact, 14 percent of people with a high school diploma make at least as
much as the median earnings of those with a Bachelor’s degree, and 17 percent of people with a
Bachelor’s degree make more than the median earnings of those with a Professional degree. A lot
of this overlap can be explained by the occupations in which individuals are found."

[taught_me_patience]

31. Again, no mention of the actual mix of professions by gender

and how that may have influenced the results. I've concluded that they deliberately left that information out to influence the "findings" of this study.

[librechik]

32. then you are being intentionally dense. n/t

[Lance_Boyle]

56. This does not account for time taken out of work to raise children.

Not to discount the role of men who do the same, but the vast majority of people who exit the workforce for a period of time to raise children are women. This has to figure into the salary discrepancies noted by Georgetown. Even just a year out of the workforce means scheduled salary increases missed, performance-based salary increases missed, promotion opportunities missed, etc. Because it is mostly women who choose to temporarily exit the workforce to raise children, the impact of those missed salary increase opportunities primarily hits women. I'm not suggesting that it accounts for all salary difference found in the Georgetown study, but for it to not even be mentioned in that study is an almost shocking omission. For valid comparison, we'd need to see the salary data as gathered in this study, but broken down between women who exit the workforce to raise kids versus women who don't, and both for men, as well.

[Gormy Cuss]

61. Read the PDF.

The data used for this estimation includes only women who do not exit the workforce for periods of time to do child rearing. There's a comment around page 11 (PDF page 13) that inclusion of women who step out of the workforce for that and other reasons would have increased the pay differences by about 20 percentage points for those with less than master's level degrees and 6-9 percentage points for those with advanced degrees.

[CreekDog]

95. yes, but his preconceived notions trump all that "evidence"

:eyes:

[jtown1123]

66. What about the bare minimum time out? 3 months can't make a huge difference.

[xmas74]

100. Bare minimum time off from childbirth is only three weeks.

I wish I were kidding. Of course, this could be something that differs from state to state.

[CreekDog]

94. thanks for researching by watching episodes of Leave It To Beaver

very insightful.

[CreekDog]

92. Link to someone making that strawman argument?

sexist strawman argument that is.

[lumberjack_jeff]

126. That "strawman" argument is the whole point of this thread.

The belief that comparing someone who worked 30 years in career "A" to someone who worked 25 years in career "W" is relevant evidence of sex discrimination.

You are making that argument.

[Starry Messenger]

3. How do we find the time with all the gossiping we do?

:sarcasm: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1745972

[seabeyond]

5. lol lol

you are cute.

i dont remember when it was, but had my male family members around and finally said....

geez, you are all a bunch of gossips.

shocked the shit out of them, then had the scuffling their feet around.

[demmiblue]

6. Lol!

:rofl:

:thumbsup:

[CreekDog]

96. on your sabbatical?

:rofl:

[Starry Messenger]

112. That's right!

While breastfeeding at the Olive Garden, writing a dissertation on smoking.

[Romulox]

7. How many hours do these workers work at each level?

:shrug:

[lumberjack_jeff]

9. In what careers?

Education isn't like shares of IBM. The certificate doesn't entitle the holder to dividends.

The knowledge has to be applied. If you apply it in long hours, in an uninterrupted career at a dangerous job, and are willing to negotiate for the best salary, it's worth more to the employer.

According to the American Association of University Women, once you adjust for things like work hours and career choice, the differential is about 5%; explainable by men's willingness to negotiate.

[Pithlet]

16. Why, men are just worth more. Of course! n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

23. Anyone who works longer hours at more dangerous jobs is. n/t

[Pithlet]

35. Riiight. It's all about the level of danger. You fool no one n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

39. No fooling you.

Employers are happy to pay big bucks for fewer hours, shorter careers and safer jobs. It's all a big guy conspiracy and AAUW is in on it.

[Pithlet]

40. No, just you. Buying the right wing talking points and spreading them around.

Pretty typical.

[lumberjack_jeff]

41. Yup. Right wing talking points from the Department of Labor.

http://www.wagegap.com/pdf/Gender-Wage-Gap-Final-Report.pdf

There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent.

<...>

Research also suggests that differences not incorporated into the model due to data limitations may account for part of the remaining gap. Specifically, CONSAD's model and much of the literature, including the Bureau of Labor Statistics Highlights of Women's Earnings, focus on wages rather than total compensation. Research indicates that women may value non-wage benefits more than men do, and as a result prefer to take a greater portion of their compensation in the form of health insurance and other fringe benefits.

<...>

Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.

[Pithlet]

42. No. That's wagecap.com.

Yes, that's data from the Department of Labor, but you and Wagegap are doing your right wing talkey pointy thing in drawing those conclusions from that data.

[CreekDog]

98. "Wait until your father gets home"

takin' the easy way out! :rofl:



:sarcasm:

[uppityperson]

44. To use your example downthread, Business men have more dangerous job than psychologist women?

Ah.

[uppityperson]

43. Are you saying men are more willing to negotiate so get paid more? What?

All I can figure is you mean women take what is offered and men hold out for more money? What?

[Pithlet]

45. See, women are weaker, so they don't work jobs that are as dangerous.

And they are meek, so they don't hold out for more money. So, therefore, all is right with the world. Men should get the better paying jobs! They deserve them. It's choices, after all, see? If women made better choices, pay would be more equal. It's our fault.

I know. Makes you sick, doesn't it?

[gkhouston]

46. Men get more money, so they must be better negotiators.

There's simply no other explanation for the disparity. :sarcasm:

[uppityperson]

48. Now now now. They could take the dangerous parts of each job. Like sharpening pencils

and having to deliver them rather than simply working on a computer. You know. Could poke an eye out.

[lumberjack_jeff]

119. I'm 14 times more likely to die on the job than you.

I don't find that fact very funny.

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0008.pdf

[uppityperson]

131. You should be very careful then. Maybe men run with scissors and women don't?

[lumberjack_jeff]

132. Would the 4000 men who died on the job last year laugh at your joke?

No doubt they brought it on themselves because jobs are safe, right? The most dangerous tool at their workplace, like yours, is a sharp pencil or a pair of scissors?

[uppityperson]

133. And I am sure the women who died would appreciate your caring about the men more also.

The most dangerous weapon at my workplace is getting raped or killed by a man, thank you very much for asking. Someone who does not understand what a Licensed Massage Therapist does. And yes, have had bad experiences, near misses, thank you for your concern.

[lumberjack_jeff]

134. How many were there? n/t

[uppityperson]

135. Not having specified a subject, I'd say 42. nt

[Scout]

136. is that not a risk you are aware of when you take the job?

are you not well compensated for a risk you knowingly assumed?

then quit yer bitchin'

[lumberjack_jeff]

137. Thanks for acknowledging that dangerous careers are paid more.

You win the thread by explaining the pay gap.

[lumberjack_jeff]

53. Yes.

That is one factor.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900827.html

[Pithlet]

58. Did you catch this part of that article?

"Their study, which was coauthored by Carnegie Mellon researcher Lei Lai, found that men and women get very different responses when they initiate negotiations. Although it may well be true that women often hurt themselves by not trying to negotiate, this study found that women's reluctance was based on an entirely reasonable and accurate view of how they were likely to be treated if they did. Both men and women were more likely to subtly penalize women who asked for more -- the perception was that women who asked for more were "less nice".

"What we found across all the studies is men were always less willing to work with a woman who had attempted to negotiate than with a woman who did not," Bowles said. "They always preferred to work with a woman who stayed mum. But it made no difference to the men whether a guy had chosen to negotiate or not."

Women just aren't aggressive? Or it isn't tolerated when they are? It's easy to point to studies and say "Here! This explains the descrepency!" and then use it to justify the status quo. But it gets a little messier when you look a little deeper, doest it? The pay gap exists for a reason. It isn't just coincidence that it happens to favor men.

[lumberjack_jeff]

60. That's not the question.

If you don't negotiate, you get less money. If you take a sabbatical in the middle of your career, you get less lifetime earnings. If you take safe/pleasant/rewarding jobs (which require high education primarily because they are desirable) you'll get lower pay.

Women tend to seek jobs with a greater emphasis on non-monetary reward and family-friendly policies, jobs for which education is primarily required to gain competitive advantage over other applicants, and don't counteroffer.

In every meaningful set of choices women as a group entering the workforce tend to make compensation a secondary criteria. You can't blame men for this.

Show me a study which shows that female powerline technicians gets paid less than a male (per hour) and I'll listen.

[Pithlet]

62. Oh, it's not, is it?

Like hell it isn't. You want to explain away the gap because of A, B, and C and It's Just the Way It Is and everyone else just has to accept those explanations. Well, sorry. We're not. We can't blame it on men because it isn't your fault? See, as I've said before discussions with you, there's your problem with feminism again. You see it as blame, so you feel you have to put dukes up. You're always in defense mode. We're fighting for equality because we want to punish men. But anyway, getting back to the discussion at hand. "Women tend to seek jobs with a greater emphasis on non-monetary reward and family-friendly policies, jobs for which education is primarily required to gain competitive advantage over other applicants, and don't counteroffer." Basically, garbage. It way oversimplifies things and completely ignores many factors. And women make compensation a secondary criteria? What a load. Yeah, we really don't want to get paid as much. What are we even fighting for equality for? Because we're bored?

[lumberjack_jeff]

68. a) a sentence with a question mark at the end isn't a statement.

It doesn't refute an argument. It's lazy. It's an attempt to infer something without requiring any effort to explain the inference, let alone back it up. "Why is that?" "Is that so?" "Are you actually saying bla bla bla?"
b) "we"?
c) If you want to be highly paid without a degree become a lineman. A journeyman lineman makes around $150k annually in in my town. Don't plan any winter vacations though.
d) What I said is accurate. Women work fewer hours, in shorter careers at safer jobs, choose careers with primarily nonmonetary reward and seek college 50% more often than men because they have a lot of competition for those "nice" jobs. Men don't seek careers as loggers, truck drivers, linemen and carpenters because they love the rain. They do it to support their family. Employers of loggers pay a better wage than that offered to retail clerks because only an idiot would accept employment as a logger if stocking shelves paid the same.

If you don't understand the problem, you will never fix it.

Simple question: How would you fix the problem identified in the OP? How would you make women's lifetime earnings equal to that of men given equal levels of education? Would you make employers pay women for child-rearing sabbaticals? Would you make women take hazardous professions? Would you increase the education of men so they can take an equal share of the pleasant jobs?

It is just the way it is, AND it is not unfair.

[uppityperson]

72. A sentence with a question mark at the end is a question. Educate yourself....

"It doesn't refute an argument. It's lazy." Wrong. Was Shakespeare lazy? Educate yourself.


http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOflinguisticTerms/WhatIsAQuestion.htm
Definition

Here are two senses of question:


A question is an illocutionary act that has a directive illocutionary point of attempting to get the addressee to supply information.
A question is a sentence type that has a form (labeled interrogative) typically used to express an illocutionary act with the directive illocutionary point mentioned above. It may be actually so used (as a direct illocution), or used rhetorically.
Examples (English)

Here are some examples of sentences, ordered to illustrate the two senses of question above:


An illocutionary act that attempts to obtain information from an addressee

Tell me your name.
Give me your address.
Sentences with inverted word order or interrogative pro-forms

What’s your name?
Did you sleep well?

RHETORICAL QUESTION
http://grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/rhetquesterm.htm
Definition:
A question asked merely for effect with no answer expected. The answer may be obvious or immediately provided by the questioner.

http://rhetoric.byu.edu/figures/r/rhetorical%20questions.htm
The rhetorical question is usually defined as any question asked for a purpose other than to obtain the information the question asks. For example, "Why are you so stupid?" is likely to be a statement regarding one's opinion of the person addressed rather than a genuine request to know. Similarly, when someone responds to a tragic event by saying, "Why me, God?!" it is more likely to be an accusation or an expression of feeling than a realistic request for information.
Apart from these more obviously rhetorical uses, the question as a grammatical form has important rhetorical dimensions. For example, the rhetorical critic may assess the effect of asking a question as a method of beginning discourse: "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" says the persona of Shakespeare's 18th sonnet. This kind of rhetorical question, in which one asks the opinion of those listening, is called anacoenosis. This rhetorical question has a definite ethical dimension, since to ask in this way generally endears the speaker to the audience and so improves his or her credibility or ethos. The technical term for rhetorical questions in general is erotema.

[Pithlet]

75. Look. You shot yourself in the foot by providing a study

that actually backs up what your opponent is saying. And it's quite funny to watch you try to twist out of it.

"It is just the way it is, AND it is not unfair". Yeah. Says a man who regularly argues against feminism. Color me unimpressed.

[lumberjack_jeff]

76. You didn't answer the question. How would you fix the problem that the OP identified? nt

[Pithlet]

79. You're really interested? But I thought it was just the way it is, and it's fair?

There isn't one neat fix. It's ongoing change. It's one of the main reasons feminism even exists. Even acknowledging the problem is there is a start.

[lumberjack_jeff]

84. More rhetorical questions in lieu of actual opinions.

The 5-7% differential after adjusting for careers, hours and time off is mostly attributable to negotiation dynamics. Maybe that is something that is fixable. Overstating a problem as an excuse to avoid doing anything to fix it isn't a start at all, but a perpetuation of the problem.

[Pithlet]

88. No. Not wanting to answer the questions doesn't mean they're rhetorical.

You don't want to debate further, fine. Just say so. When the questions are tough, hey? who wouldn't understand, huh? It's okay.

No, they aren't mostly attributable just because you and your MRA talking points say they are. Your own study from the Washington Post explained why.

[Yupster]

117. I used to be on our school district's salary committee

and we noticed an interesting fact.

In every category of education, the average male teacher made a few thousand dollars more than the average female teacher.

The reason this was surprising was that the district had a salary schedule that didn't have anything to do with sex. A BA with 14 years got X amount whether he/she was male or female.

Yet, in every category the male made more.

The male 50 year old teacher with a BA made $ 1500 more than the female 50 year old teacher with a BA.

Turns out the male 50 year old had two years more experience on average than the female 50 year old.

Then we went by years experience instead of age.

Sure enough, the male with 24 years and a BA made $ 500 more than the female with 24 years and a BA.

How could this be?

Looked like it was extra duties. Male teachers were much more likely to add extra duties like coaching. In fact most schools had some male coaches coaching girls because they couldn't get women volunteers even though 3/4 ths of the teachers were female.

[lumberjack_jeff]

118. Men and women see work differently.

Ask a college freshman why she chose her major. "I want to be a pediatric nurse because I want to do something rewarding and important."
Ask a college freshman why he chose his major. "I'm good with math, and monster.com says that an MBA is the best paying job for someone with my skills."

Generally, a man (at least those I grew up with) thinks of work as almost exclusively a vehicle to create income. Fulfillment is often considered an indulgence.

This shows up in career choice, hours worked and in negotiations. A good manager gives his or her employees what they want to keep them happy. Unpaid time off? Heck, that's easy.

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/puot0002/3004/Women,%20careers,%20and%20work-life%20preferences.pdf

[Pithlet]

63. And, if you're going to use an explanation

then how in the hell does it not become the question, exactly? You say Well, women aren't aggressive enough! Well, right in the study you use as backup, it says that there is evidence that women are punished for being aggressive. How do you then get to say that doesn't matter? That goes right to the heart of the matter, don't you think? Why the wage gaps exists and what can be done about it? How in the hell is it not an issue?

[uppityperson]

64. Seems that is a big part of it If you DO negotiate and are female, you get less than if you are male

Thank you for this study that says says "It is not that women always act one way and men act another way; it tends to be moderated by situational factors," Bowles said. "The point of this paper is: Yes, there is an economic rationale to negotiate, but you have to weigh that against social risks of negotiating. What we show is those risks are higher for women than for men."

In other words, that old addage that men are assertive, women are bitches, still holds true in economics.


{div class="excerpt"]The traditional explanation for the gender differences that Babcock found is that men are simply more aggressive than women, perhaps because of a combination of genetics and upbringing. The solution to gender disparities, this school of thought suggests, is to train women to be more assertive and to ask for more. However, a new set of experiments by Babcock and Hannah Riley Bowles, who studies the psychology of organizations at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, offers an entirely different explanation.

Their study, which was coauthored by Carnegie Mellon researcher Lei Lai, found that men and women get very different responses when they initiate negotiations. Although it may well be true that women often hurt themselves by not trying to negotiate, this study found that women's reluctance was based on an entirely reasonable and accurate view of how they were likely to be treated if they did. Both men and women were more likely to subtly penalize women who asked for more -- the perception was that women who asked for more were "less nice".

"What we found across all the studies is men were always less willing to work with a woman who had attempted to negotiate than with a woman who did not," Bowles said. "They always preferred to work with a woman who stayed mum. But it made no difference to the men whether a guy had chosen to negotiate or not."

In this study, Bowles and her colleagues divided 119 volunteers at random into different groups and provided them with descriptions of male or female candidates who tried to negotiate a higher starting salary for a hypothetical job, along with descriptions of applicants who accepted the offered salary. The volunteers were asked to decide whether they would hire the candidates -- who were all described as exceptionally talented and qualified. While both men and women were penalized for negotiating, Bowles found that the negative effect for women was more than twice as large as that for men....(more)

[xmas74]

102. You've nailed it.

:woohoo: (Or maybe I should :cry: )

Once you negotiate you are treated differently-if you are a woman. I've witnessed it too many times and what I've noticed is that once a woman attempts to negotiate she is treated differently and not in a good way. More work is pushed towards her, less tolerance is used, and coworkers are silently encouraged to ostracize her.

[uppityperson]

67. thank you for this study that says that is one factor but not the main one.

"It is not that women always act one way and men act another way; it tends to be moderated by situational factors," Bowles said. "The point of this paper is: Yes, there is an economic rationale to negotiate, but you have to weigh that against social risks of negotiating. What we show is those risks are higher for women than for men."

Before I put my sex on my du ID, many people thought I was male because I was assertive. That was one reason I used "person" as part of my username. However, I got tired of it and informed directly and through my id that I am female and am now a bitch. (mods, I am calling myself that ironically. DUers, you can't call me that as it is an insult).

This article you linked to also says that. Men are assertive and appreciated for that, women are bitches and it and are penalized.

Finally, yes, this is not true in every situation. There are edges to bell curve, but overall, this also explains why women make less than men. Social perception.

[lumberjack_jeff]

70. The DOL data shows that the wage gap is between 5 and 7%.

That differential is attributable to several factors which includes negotiation.

Does that inhibition work against women from the perspective of both employer and employee? I accept that it probably does. If negotiating for best pay is atypical, it's reasonable to conclude that a prospective employer who has two or three female applicants, is more likely to move on to number two on the list if number one negotiates. Number two is likely to simply accept the first offer.

If the prospective employer has two or three men applying for a job, he or she is probably less likely to move on to number two offhand simply because number two guy is just as likely to counteroffer as number one was.

[uppityperson]

74. And if a prospective employer has 1 man, 1 woman, both negotiating, will give man more

as your linked article says. When women negotiate, they still get less than men.

The differential also includes social factors such as men are perceived as assertive and an asset where women are perceived as bitches and not.

[lumberjack_jeff]

78. That's not what the article said.

It said that men are likely to negotiate when women are not. It said that interviewers are less likely to form a diminished opinion of a man who does than a woman.

Atypical behavior isn't rewarded. No surprise. The guys who don't negotiate are undoubtedly seen as wimps, too.

[Pithlet]

80. That's not what it said?

"It said that interviewers are less likely to form a diminished opinion of a man who does than a woman." Even assuming you're right, and that's the only thing it said. You think that would have no effect? Come on.

[lumberjack_jeff]

85. If nothing else, the fact that men are 20% more likely to be unemployed shoots this theory. n/t

[uppityperson]

86. Nope. Jobs traditionally held by men are more likely to have higher unemployment, like construction

Nothing about men being more likely to be unemployed simply because they are men.

[Pithlet]

90. It does? How?

And no. Those aren't rhetorical questions.

[uppityperson]

87. It says this.

Their study, which was coauthored by Carnegie Mellon researcher Lei Lai, found that men and women get very different responses when they initiate negotiations. Although it may well be true that women often hurt themselves by not trying to negotiate, this study found that women's reluctance was based on an entirely reasonable and accurate view of how they were likely to be treated if they did. Both men and women were more likely to subtly penalize women who asked for more -- the perception was that women who asked for more were "less nice".

"What we found across all the studies is men were always less willing to work with a woman who had attempted to negotiate than with a woman who did not," Bowles said. "They always preferred to work with a woman who stayed mum. But it made no difference to the men whether a guy had chosen to negotiate or not."

Men tend to negotiate more than women. Women who do negotiate do not get as good of a result as men who do, no matter if the person they are negotiating with is male of female because they are "less nice", ie a bitch. Men prefer to work with women who don't negotiate. It makes no difference to men whether or not another man chooses to negotiate (which counters your "wimps" assumption).

Yes, that is exactly what the article said. Women "choose" to negotiate less because they have found they are penalized. Men are assertive, and if they aren't they still are preferred over women, esp those who are bitches "less nice".

[lumberjack_jeff]

104. In my experience, women do negotiate.

What they choose to negotiate with the boss about are nonmonetary topics. Time off, work assignments, location (ie office space) and to a lesser extent, insurance.

If most women negotiated salary, it wouldn't be seen as antisocial and their aggregate salaries would rise.

Your contention is that this led to less pay for women. I suggest it leads to unemployment for men. The latter is easier to demonstrate statistically.

[uppityperson]

105. I think that is backwards. If it wasn't seen as antisocial, more wHVomen would negotiate.

Women having been punished, passed over, not hired, because they tried to negotiate leaves them less likely to continue to try. to tell them that they need to negotiate when they have found it works, in general or often enough, AGAINST them, that this will change things is rather backward.

It sounds like telling women they should not wear skirts and they won't get raped sort of thing.

Yes, women being passed over, women being hired at lower rates does lead to less pay for women.

How does this lead to unemployment for men?

Please demonstrate what you mean, statistically.

[lumberjack_jeff]

107. .

http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/trends/2008/0508/04ecoact.cfm

Women are displacing men in the workplace. When you read about wage gap, it doesn't include the unemployed, the vast majority of whom are men.

[uppityperson]

109. In the last 14 yrs, with ups and downs, looks like about equal.

Since 1969, yes, more men than women have lost jobs. But currently, looking at that chart, from the last grey bar to now, more women have lost jobs.

[xmas74]

101. Or he knows that many women,

myself included, feel forced to take whatever is offered, knowing that many employers will never pay us the equivalent.

I've given up on myself but I don't want my daughter to go through this same crap!

[chrisa]

55. There aren't many dangerous jobs for people with Masters, PhD's, Dr. degrees.

Yet the disparity still remains at those levels.

[lumberjack_jeff]

57. Some jobs require an arbitrarily large amount of education to obtain.

Simply because of the large number of people who want that career. English literature and art history for example. There are a finite number of college teaching positions.

There ARE jobs which require PhD's that demand long hours, uninterrupted careers and few nonmonetary rewards.

This study proves that education level is important but not determinant of lifetime earnings.

[CreekDog]

97. you are so concerned about discrimination based on gender

well, one gender, I guess.

[kestrel91316]

14. We are all just Ginger Rogerses, dancing backwards in high heels

and getting half the credit we deserve.

On the up side, it's been at least 5 years since a client has said to me, "I've never heard of a woman veterinarian", and 20 years since one has demanded to see the "man doctor".

But our forward progress toward full equality has pretty much slowed to a crawl now.

[McCamy Taylor]

15. Are you sure all those bachelor degrees are BAs? If men go into engineering and computers

more than women, then yes, they will earn more.

I think we need more info on this one. The statistics I recall say that a PhD is the equalizer between men and women and whites and minority if the PhD is in the same field.

[seabeyond]

17. what would the number of gender have anything to do with the pay of the gender.

if a field has 90% males, and a man and woman walks in for a job, i dont see why they would offer him more than her.

[dsc]

27. He is saying that the difference might be explained by career choice and not gender

thus male and female engineers are making the same as are male and female teachers but the engineers are making more than the teachers and there are way more male engineers.

[seabeyond]

34. thanks. i never got saying comparative

like entry level receptionist to entry level construction worker.

but

i do get man and woman receiving a position for the same job. 3rd grade teacher. this is that stat that i found, that is the most reputable source. it is hard for me to google, cause i am not up on good source, bad source:


Equal pay, however, remains a problem in every occupational category, even in occupations
where women considerably outnumber men. In 2009, certain professions showed a significant
gap:37
 Women in professional and related occupations earned over 26% less than their male
counterparts, while women in sales and office occupations earned 20% less than similarly
employed men.
 Female elementary and middle school teachers earned over 14% less than similarly
employed men, despite comprising almost 82% of the field.38
 Female registered nurses earned more than 5% less than their male colleagues, although
over 90% of nurses are women.39
 Female physicians and surgeons earned a whopping 36% less than their male
counterparts.
 Female college and university teachers earned over 15% less than those who were male.
 Female lawyers earned 25% less than male lawyers.

http://www.pay-equity.org/PDFs/ProfWomen.pdf

[Odin2005]

19. That is pathetic beyong belief.

[laundry_queen]

20. And even more pathetic

are some of the comments in this thread. And we wonder why there's a discrepancy in pay. With even progressives holding this attitude, it's a fucking mystery to me. :eyes:

But what do I know. I'm just a breeder.

[Odin2005]

22. Our society is going backwards!

:(

[xmas74]

36. You too?

I work a couple of jobs and I know that I earn less than my male coworkers-much less. Are we doing the same amount of work? No, I'm actually doing more work.

Of course what do I know about my value in the workforce. After all, I'm just a breeder.

(Even worse-I'm one of those single mothers, which makes me a breeder of loose morals.)

[Pithlet]

37. Maybe you're just doing less dangerous stuff.

:sarcasm:

[xmas74]

99. You know, that whole giving birth thing was a walk in the park.

And lifting objects over a hundred pounds throughout my shift is just a picnic, as is grabbing baking dishes from a 400 degree oven that is over my head (meaning I have no idea if some idiot put something full of liquid in the pan). The scars on my arms from baking and mass production cooking are just for show,yo.

And why should I be upset about that one of my supervisors has less education and less experience? I should just be thankful that a "big, strong man" is there to tell me what I'm doing wrong and get paid more for me to do his work. We girls should just bow down and thank all the big strong men in the world just for putting up with us.

:sarcasm:

[SoCalDem]

24. Trends take a long time to change

Women only really entered the permanent job market in a big way during the 70's & 80's, and at that time, their bosses were mostly MEN, usually much older than they were. Their success was often determined by the whims of their bosses. Women got promoted and put into powerful positions less often than men, so of course they are still behind, because the base of the pyramid is still controlled by the "Good Ole Boy Network".

Union membership is a great guarantee that woman earn fair wages based on the job, not the gender or the boss' assessment of her willingness to "play ball", but we all know how unions are doing these days:(

Another reason is that many women's degrees are in fields that traditionally do not pay the "big bucks".. More women are branching out into higher paid fields, but if you compare a woman with a PHD in education vs a BA in engineering/finance/marketing/business-management for a well-connected man, I'd bet that the man will make more.

Another reason is that women who want a family, will usually take some time here and there during her career, to tend to child-related issues, and most men have not and still do not. Continuous "service" is something the good ole boys value when they consider entrance into the club.

As much as we like to think that things have changed, the Mad Men version of working women is not that far behind us..

[NNN0LHI]

25. On the union job I worked women made exactly the same pay and benefits as the men made

But Americans didn't like those factory jobs so they purchased the imported and non-union version of what we made until most of those good paying union jobs were moved out of the country.

Wonder if anyone is having any regrets about doing that now? No jobs for them or their children any more. And the jobs that are left are low paying, no benefit type jobs.

Americans sure are good at fucking themselves.

Don

[taught_me_patience]

28. This chart completely ignores the mix of workers at each education level

If the male "Masters" skews towards MBAs and female "masters" skews toward psychology, then, of course the males will make an average of more money.

[uppityperson]

38. If the female "Masters" skews towards MBA and male "masters" skews towards psychology, that throws

your argument right out the window. Why would you assume there are more male MBA and more female psychologists?

[taught_me_patience]

47. Never made that assumption... you read into my statement

Notice I used "IF".

I just tried to highlight what might skew these numbers one way or another. In fact, by not addressing the mix of professions by gender, I believe the entire study by Georgetown is invalidated. This is truly shoddy statistical analysis.

[Pithlet]

49. Why is it invalidated? It may have been intentional.

The focus was on hours worked. The fact that some professions are biased in favor of one gender affects the pay scale and contributes to the pay gap. It skews the numbers. Well, exactly. The fact that jobs that men tend to seek are higher paying while traditional female jobs are lower paying is a contributor to the pay gap. That matters. Why should that be ignored? Women have to work much harder to attain the same level of success, and that is a factor.

[saras]

50. They left it out because they repeatedly demonstrated it's irrelevant. Didn't you read the study?

[uppityperson]

51. Did you read the study? I don't think so.

[taught_me_patience]

52. I downloaded the PDF and read it.

If you read it, please point out where it discusses professional mix by gender and that impact on average salary by gender.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

33. I earned a Juris Doctor 25 years ago, and I'm female.

That is a standard law degree. Actually it's 90 semester hours of hell.

I have NEVER gotten a single job with my B.A. in biology or with my Juris Doctor.

That's 9 years of college wasted, as far as the job market.

:banghead:


Shoulda been an art major for all the good it did me. I'd be just as unemployed.

[hfojvt]

111. My own 8 years at State Universities seems to be just as useless

and I am male.

But I did once have a decent paying job as part of the war machine in 1985-86 and after I got my MA I did get a part-time teaching job making $8,100 a year in 1990. I could have gotten a full time job if I wanted to drive between cities, but I turned that down since I did not own a car and didn't want to buy one. $8,100 was decent money for a part time job, but hardly high living.

[noiretextatique]

dupe

[noiretextatique]

69. i don't think any woman has a problem with those figures

certainly not me. i have a BA and a MA and my vagina seems more important to employers than my brain.

[FreeJoe]

73. These sorts of studies annoy me.

I live amongst a lot of well educated, very technical Republicans. When they see stupid studies like this, I take all sorts of grief from them. The net effect is that the message that women face pay discrimination in the workforce takes a hit because these lousy studies hurt the credibility of real studies that establish that.

Any first year statistics student, or even someone with common sense, should know that you can't do comparisons like "all males with BAs" compared to "all females with PhDs". You have to make some effort to control for other factors that could cause a difference. Here, the most obvious one is a question of what those degrees are in. Do women and men choose the same majors? When I was in school, females were disproportionately represented in low paying majors like education and males were over represented in majors like engineering. Beyond that, a comparable pay study would have to make sure that it didn't ignore things like comparable number of hours worked, work history, or anything else that biases the data in either direction.

I've seen very good studies that work hard to make the comparisons fair and they do show that women tend to be underpaid, but by much smaller percentages than shown here. When people push obviously flawed studies that vastly overstate a problem, it makes it harder for to get people to buy into solutions because they think the whole thing is BS.

[LanternWaste]

77. As an aside, it is precisely these threads which brings out a very petulant coterie...

As an aside, it is precisely these threads which brings out a very petulant coterie rationalizing and dismissing pay disparity. Same posters. Every time.

I've stopped wondering why... sometimes it becomes obvious enough even for me to realize. :P

[lumberjack_jeff]

81. As well as a passive-aggressive group fully invested in a comforting stereotype.

Facts really are irrelevant, aren't they?

Is the pay gap 50%, 22% or 5%? One isn't a real progressive unless one picks the biggest number. Besides, a nebulous, inarticulate and poorly formed sense of injustice allows us to complain about the world as it is without any obligation to suggest solutions.

[Pithlet]

82. So, your opinion that It's The Way It is, And It's Fair

is totally because there isn't one solid study with one neat, pat number that all feminists agree on. If we all get on the same page, you'll change your mind, then? Somehow, I doubt it.

[LanternWaste]

83. What's the comforting stereotype?

What's the comforting stereotype? I see little comfort at all... maybe you interpret it differently. :shrug:


"injustice allows us to complain about the world as is..."
I believe you're conflating 'concern' and 'complain' (however, I fully realize that use of 'complaint' does indeed minimize and belittle any opinions that are not in parallel to yours, and thus understand the agenda of its usage...).

[uppityperson]

89. Thank you for clarifying that you are comfortable with this pay inequality

It helps us know you better.

Part of the solution, as you showed by your linked article, is to understand that there are still social barriers to overcoming pay inequality via sexism. You are indeed showing us what part of the problem is. The solution? Perhaps inform, educate, try to get it through people's heads that there is a problem and they are part of it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

106. You're doing it wrong.

I tell you what I think. You tell me what you think. Your proclamations don't help anyone know me any better.

I'm not comfortable trying to fix a 5% problem with 25% solutions. Delusions about the scope of a problem lead to bad outcomes.

If you want to fix the workplace expectations that women don't negotiate salary and men don't negotiate non-monetary issues, I'm listening.

[CreekDog]

113. you've never found one instance of discrimination towards women

at all.

no matter the circumstance or story, you weigh in to deny it matters or deny its veracity.

even when presented with studies or facts.

by the way, why haven't you posted your disagreement with the study that says women gossip 5 hours per day?

selective disagreement.

[lumberjack_jeff]

114. The wage gap appears to be about 5-7%. The unemployment gap is about 20%.

Either may be evidence of discrimination.

[CreekDog]

120. dodging the question again: why no comment on the "women gossip" thread

you are all over this thread and any thread that suggests women are discriminated against and you post to justify such discrimination as you're doing here.

one would reasonably think that all you care about is discrimination against men, and why is the post i mention key? because you're all over any post about discrimination against women, but when a post looks like it falsely impugns women, you are silent.

do you care about civil rights or just men's rights?

:shrug:

[lumberjack_jeff]

121. I can see why it bothers you.

Until you pointed it out, I hadn't seen it. I can see why it offends, much in the same way that studies that men spend "X" hours per day thinking about sex should be offensive.

But despite the fact that those studies bother me, I concede that men very well may spend a disproportionate time thinking about sex, and it does reflect poorly and reinforce stereotypes.

Not everything offensive is inaccurate. Nor is everything that offends "discrimination". When someone says "Women have an innately superior and rich capacity for communication" women say "Hell yeah!". When someone says "Women gossip" That's a different kettle of fish. Conversely, the observation that "men look at boobs" is qualitatively different than saying "Men have a superior visual sense and spatial awareness ability."

I do care about civil rights.

In fact, I support the Equal Rights Amendment.

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Can you name three sexist institutions which will be abolished by passage of this law?

I can.

What I object to about the topic of this thread is the massive, intentional, reductionist and hyperbolic overstatement of income data to capture headlines.

Once you adjust for the patently obvious factors (such as career choice and hours worked), the wage gap may be as much as 7%. Understanding and acknowledging the causes of that 7% is the first step to rectifying it.

[sudopod]

123. Well, you've convinced me that women are not discriminated against vis-à-vis pay.

Seriously, though, what planet are you from? lol

[lumberjack_jeff]

125. Facts have a well known bias. n/t

[sudopod]

127. Liberal? nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

130. Yes. Liberal = fact based. n/t

[CreekDog]

128. he's not saying they aren't discriminated against

he's saying they deserve it. :dilemma:

[sudopod]

129. He's just jealous that he doesn't have a factory for making more of himself.

http://xkcd.com/387/

[seabeyond]

138. it is a myth men are more visual..... but dont let that interfer with keeping the myth going

2. Men are more visually stimulated than women.

Even some sexologists get this one wrong all the time. While we have been taught that men are more visual than women when it comes to arousal, a study in the journal Brain Research indicates otherwise. Researchers out of Washington University measured the brainwave activity of 264 women viewing a variety of color slides of erotic and non-erotic images. Naturally, the brainwave activity became markedly different with the erotic slides. But what threw off researchers is that the female participants responded as strongly as men do to such imagery.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,347669,00.html#ixzz1VU2KPi7g


Thought Experiment: If nearly naked men had been dancing in those columns, do you think the audience would have thought “hot men for the women!” or “how gay!”? I think many, if not most, would have thought “how gay!” A female gaze that validates women’s sexual subjectivity and the sexual objectification of men is simply less accessible for both women and men. I think if men were dancing in the columns, an objectifying male gaze would still be at play, except this time the gaze would have been aimed at men.

Wade attributes this to the “primacy of the male gaze” and the presumption that the default perspective is male. Which is probably no small part of it, but I think there’s some other stuff going on here as well. First, there’s a widely held belief that men are much more responsive than women to visual sexual stimulus. Recent brain research suggests that this may, in fact, be a myth—but the idea is widespread enough that a marketer trying to use sex to sell in a visual medium may just be trying to maximize the effectiveness of their ad.
http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/08/10/the-look-of-lust/

It is considered an almost forgone conclusion across research disciplines, among pop psychologists of all stripes, and in the general population that men are more “visual” than women when it comes to the way they get turned on. Men, we’re told, are visually aroused, whereas women just need a good sense of humor, and possibly a strong jaw, and they're on board.

This misguided, but pervasive belief can be linked to a host of other gender stereotypes which are further complicated by sexual politics and differences in social power. So arguments which should be challenged, such as the “fact” that men leer more than women do, that they objectify women’s bodies more than women do men’s bodies, and that they just can’t stop watching porn, are explained as somehow being related to a mix of genetics, patriarchy, and simple mindedness.

Challenging these ideas can be a monumental task. Researcher bias being what it is, science rarely offers support for these "counter-intuitive" ideas. What's worse, when research does start to complicate matters, the media, and even smart bloggers who should know better, distort the findings beyond recognition.

Nonetheless, a recent study published in the journal Brain Research is offering the first preliminary but important evidence to dispel the age old myth that visual imagery is more important to men than it is to women. And it's worth considering without hyperbole.
http://sexuality.about.com/b/2006/06/19/new-brain-research-challenges-the-myth-that-men-are-more-visual-than-women.htm

[Evasporque]

91. I have a big ass and I don't get paid any more for it....nt

[TNLib]

103. Working in IT I'm unfortunately extremely aware of Pay disparity and glass ceilings

I could tell horror stories how women are treated in my field. Some days I get so depressed I feel like I may need to go on anti-depressants or seek therapy because of it.

[StarsInHerHair]

108. not surprised been this way for a LONG TIME