Comments on: The Gender Pay Gap Reverses http://www.eqsq.com/vivreladifference/2007/08/04/the-gender-pay-gap-reverses/ Vivre La Difference Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:24:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Tim Worstall http://www.eqsq.com/vivreladifference/2007/08/04/the-gender-pay-gap-reverses/#comment-6529 Tim Worstall Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:27:37 +0000 http://eqsq.com/vivreLaDifference/the-gender-pay-gap-reverses.html#comment-6529 I was puzzled by that as well and actually wrote to the author of the paper for more intelligence on it. I didn't, I'm afraid to say, get much useful from him, or not that I had the intelligence to understand. My assumption was as yours: that it's something to do with needing more advanced degrees. One way it could work is this: in order to get a decent career you now have to spend more time in school than 40 years ago. But his numbers only came from those who were in full time work. So those still in school are not included in his calculation. Thus, those who are in full time work in their 20s are skewed to those who are in lower paying jobs, the type you can get without those higher degrees. Make sense? That would explain why average wages are down for the young, when we know that average wages for all are up over the period. I was puzzled by that as well and actually wrote to the author of the paper for more intelligence on it. I didn’t, I’m afraid to say, get much useful from him, or not that I had the intelligence to understand. My assumption was as yours: that it’s something to do with needing more advanced degrees.
One way it could work is this: in order to get a decent career you now have to spend more time in school than 40 years ago. But his numbers only came from those who were in full time work. So those still in school are not included in his calculation. Thus, those who are in full time work in their 20s are skewed to those who are in lower paying jobs, the type you can get without those higher degrees. Make sense? That would explain why average wages are down for the young, when we know that average wages for all are up over the period.

]]> By: lucy http://www.eqsq.com/vivreladifference/2007/08/04/the-gender-pay-gap-reverses/#comment-6368 lucy Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:48:14 +0000 http://eqsq.com/vivreLaDifference/the-gender-pay-gap-reverses.html#comment-6368 Something not specifically mentioned in the NYT article is the dramatic drop in salaries for 21- to 30-year-olds. Adjusted for inflation, in 1970 NYC, the average man and woman of this age group made $71,833 together; in 2005, it was $66,213. In the U.S., the story was the same: $62,788 in 1970, $53,990 in 2005. Broken down between men and women, in the U.S., women’s salaries basically stayed the same between 1970 and 2005. And men (as the article stated) were making nearly 10k less. In NYC, women made a few thousand more in 2005 than 1970, and again, men were nearly 10k less. So to me, it seems perhaps less of an indicator of a trend toward women making more (although this is happening), and more of a trend toward young-adults now making less than they did in 1970. Actually, I was surprised that women’s salaries didn’t rise MORE since 1970, as so many women are now receiving more degrees, entering ‘serious’ careers, etc. My theory: 21-30-year-olds, men and women, are taking longer than their parents to jump into ‘serious’ careers. This is probably largely connected to the increasing need for advanced college degrees. You’d really need to look at statistics of the next age group to compare. Something not specifically mentioned in the NYT article is the dramatic drop in salaries for 21- to 30-year-olds. Adjusted for inflation, in 1970 NYC, the average man and woman of this age group made $71,833 together; in 2005, it was $66,213. In the U.S., the story was the same: $62,788 in 1970, $53,990 in 2005. Broken down between men and women, in the U.S., women’s salaries basically stayed the same between 1970 and 2005. And men (as the article stated) were making nearly 10k less. In NYC, women made a few thousand more in 2005 than 1970, and again, men were nearly 10k less.

So to me, it seems perhaps less of an indicator of a trend toward women making more (although this is happening), and more of a trend toward young-adults now making less than they did in 1970. Actually, I was surprised that women’s salaries didn’t rise MORE since 1970, as so many women are now receiving more degrees, entering ‘serious’ careers, etc.

My theory: 21-30-year-olds, men and women, are taking longer than their parents to jump into ‘serious’ careers. This is probably largely connected to the increasing need for advanced college degrees.

You’d really need to look at statistics of the next age group to compare.

]]> By: Tim Worstall http://www.eqsq.com/vivreladifference/2007/08/04/the-gender-pay-gap-reverses/#comment-6342 Tim Worstall Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:07:53 +0000 http://eqsq.com/vivreLaDifference/the-gender-pay-gap-reverses.html#comment-6342 Certainly, in certain types of management, I've seen intelligence that says that women are better managers: where teamwork is more important than individual performance, for example. It's also true that birth rates are falling, as they have been all last century: there has, however, just been one paper showing a reversal. Amongst the very rich there are significantly more than normal fertility rates. No one's quite sure what that's going to mean in the future, it's just an as yet undigested piece of intelligence. However, we do need to still understand, that while this is indeed an historic event, the first time a female cohort has been earning more than a male, it still isn't "full" gender pay equality. For once you control for education, the men are still making more than the women. Still a little way to go therefore. Certainly, in certain types of management, I’ve seen intelligence that says that women are better managers: where teamwork is more important than individual performance, for example. It’s also true that birth rates are falling, as they have been all last century: there has, however, just been one paper showing a reversal. Amongst the very rich there are significantly more than normal fertility rates. No one’s quite sure what that’s going to mean in the future, it’s just an as yet undigested piece of intelligence.
However, we do need to still understand, that while this is indeed an historic event, the first time a female cohort has been earning more than a male, it still isn’t “full” gender pay equality. For once you control for education, the men are still making more than the women. Still a little way to go therefore.

]]> By: millie mclelland http://www.eqsq.com/vivreladifference/2007/08/04/the-gender-pay-gap-reverses/#comment-6279 millie mclelland Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:01:19 +0000 http://eqsq.com/vivreLaDifference/the-gender-pay-gap-reverses.html#comment-6279 Tim, Wow. That's truly historical. It will be interesting to see what the future holds. According to some intelligence I've come across, <a href="http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=6775668" rel="nofollow">, fewer and fewer people are projected to have children </a>. And children have become less a part of how Americans define a happy marriage. If a significant percentage of women forego childbearing, we might actually see a real power shift, or at least an equalization with respect to representation, at the top levels. After all, aren't women now thought to be better at management, for example, due to the fact that they generally have more empathy. What do you think? Tim, Wow. That’s truly historical. It will be interesting to see what the future holds. According to some intelligence I’ve come across, , fewer and fewer people are projected to have children . And children have become less a part of how Americans define a happy marriage. If a significant percentage of women forego childbearing, we might actually see a real power shift, or at least an equalization with respect to representation, at the top levels. After all, aren’t women now thought to be better at management, for example, due to the fact that they generally have more empathy. What do you think?

]]>