Female grads earn $8,000 less than men

[Vladenschlutte]

<p>

My husband is a statistician. He insists the only fair way to judge the discrepancy is to do a paired sample T test matching people with common degrees from common universities (e.g. a female accounting major from XYZ university with a male accounting major from XYZ university). It will eliminate possible sources of bias. As this was done, the methodology is flawed.

</p>

<p>From what tiny bit I know about statistics, this sounds correct. Except, how do you know that this was done?</p>

[SerenityJade]

<p>

My husband is a statistician. He insists the only fair way to judge the discrepancy is to do a paired sample T test matching people with common degrees from common universities (e.g. a female accounting major from XYZ university with a male accounting major from XYZ university). It will eliminate possible sources of bias. As this was done, the methodology is flawed.

</p>

<p>I think there are far too many variables for that paired t-test to actually be completely accurate. In actuality, you would need a very large sample of students in the same major at the same universities of both sexes who went for comparable jobs in areas where the median entry level salaries for the jobs are similar. Then when you pair those up, you could do a paired t-test. And hope for a significant p-value. Or not. Depending on what you wish to give evidence for.</p>

[GMTplus7]

<p>

There are 79 white men making decisions about this country. Whites make up 72 percent of the country. Assuming about half of whites are male, white males make up only 36 percent of the nation. Why do they have nearly 80 percent of the Senate?

</p>

<p>Women can’t get elected if they don’t run for public office</p>

[SerenityJade]

<p>Women can’t get elected if they try to run for public office but can’t find backers because men have bought them all</p>

[ucbalumnus]

<p>

@poetgrl

The two party system is in control of the primary system. The primary system is actually PAID for by taxpayers. Why a primary? Why not everyone who wants to run, run and we do it til someone gets over fifty percent of the vote?</p>

<p>run offs?

</p>

<p>Some states, like California, have switched to a “jungle primary”. All candidates are thrown together in the primary election; the top two of the primary election go on to the general election. It does mean that it is possible for the top two to be of the same party in the general election, if the district is heavily populated by supporters of one party.</p>

[alh]

<p>I am going to try my very best not to be “political” and get the thread shut down…</p>

<p>

One way would be to encourage young women to study math and the sciences and to occupy those typically male jobs, as some programs are already trying to do. Another would be to encourage employers, as Canada does, to ensure through their own policies that jobs that require equal responsibility and skill are valued equally, even if one has traditionally paid less than the other.</p>

<p>“The classic example is childcare workers who are paid less than zookeepers,” said Heather Boushey, senior economist at the Center for American Progress. “Both require high degrees of skill, but childcare workers for some reason are valued less.”

</p>

<p>[Closing</a> The Gender Wage Gap Would Create ‘Huge’ Economic Stimulus, Economists Say](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>Closing The Gender Wage Gap Would Create 'Huge' Economic Stimulus, Economists Say | HuffPost Latest News)</p>

<p>poetgrl post 30:</p>

<p>

So, yeah, I think the girls need to learn how to negotiate. I used to think about that when I was a young girl. I would babysit, a very demanding and way more important job than lawn mowing, and my brother, who got to use the family lawn mower, made a fortune compared to me, for very little time invested.

</p>

<p>Child care workers vs. engineers… isn’t it just what society values?</p>

<p>And even though child care workers usually don’t make much, won’t a recent female graduate pay more than $38 a week for someone to watch her child so she can work for a salary? I have no idea. I hope so.</p>

[alh]

<p>

U.S. births fell for the fourth year in a row, the government reported Wednesday, with experts calling it more proof that the weak economy has continued to dampen enthusiasm for having children.

</p>

<p>[Birth</a> Rate In U.S. Down For Fourth Year In A Row](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost)</p>

<p>

The phenomenon of women choosing not to have children is afflicting the industrialized world in alarming numbers. Childlessness is steadily becoming more widespread, particularly in English-speaking countries but also in Japan and in much of Europe. In 20 years, the number of childless women in many countries has doubled.

</p>

<p>

Although a minority of women choose not to have children, the trend constitutes a genuine revolution, pointing to some unspoken resistance to motherhood. As we know, as soon as women were able to control reproduction, pursue studies, enter the job market and aspire to financial independence, motherhood stopped being an inevitable, self-evident step and became a choice instead. Whether we like it or not, motherhood is now only one important aspect of women’s identity, no longer the key to achieving a sense of self-fulfillment. And the rate at which women are saying no to children – most notably among those with college education – suggests that the choice, for many, threatens the other facets of their identity: their freedom, energy, income and professional accomplishments. </p>

<p>No country can afford to ignore a decline in its birthrate. In the long term, a nation’s pension payments, power and very survival are at stake.

</p>

<p>[Why</a> are rich nations’ birthrates in free fall? - CNN.com](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/15/opinion/badinter-birthrate/index.html]Why”>http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/15/opinion/badinter-birthrate/index.html)</p>

<p>From a NYTimes review of several books:</p>

<p>

She notes that while many individual women have accomplished a great deal since the women’s liberation movement of the 1970s, our society, collectively, has not adapted to acknowledge these accomplishments and respond to the changed needs of families. Despite the fact that only about 20 percent of American families with children under age 15 are now constructed along the old model of a working father and a stay-at-home mother, the United States is virtually alone in the world — or, more precisely, it’s in the exclusive company of Liberia, Papua New Guinea and Swazi*land — in not guaranteeing any form of paid leave for families with newborns. (Since 2011, when Australia left us behind, we’ve been the only country in the advanced industrialized world not to offer any guaranteed paid leave for newborn care.)

</p>

<p>

It’s a good question. How do you get today’s moms, and all their equally overtaxed potential allies, to show up for a revolution? Perhaps we need a 21st-century Gloria Steinem, a multi*tasking, minivan-driving, media-savvy soccer mom (or dad) with just enough of a hint of glamour to make protest as appealing a prospect as Girls’ Night Out.

</p>

<p><a href=“‘The Conflict’ and ‘The New Feminist Agenda’ - The New York Times”>‘The Conflict’ and ‘The New Feminist Agenda’ - The New York Times;

<p>Only women have babies. Maternity negatively impacts “working” women. Mothers may not have enough time to participate in the revolution.</p>

[GMTplus7]

<p>Yes, maternity does impact earnings. But the article is about the wage gap for young men vs. women coming straight out of college. The vast majority of women at that stage in their lives don’t have kids.</p>

[alh]

<p>In my opinion the reason new female graduates (as a whole) earn less is because all women (as a whole group of workers) are seen as less valuable workers since they may have to take time off to give birth.</p>

<p>Prior to industrialization women combined work with family with less conflict. Laurel Thatcher Ulrich demonstrates this in A midwife’s tale</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Midwifes-Tale-Martha-Ballard-1785-1812/dp/0679733760[/url]”>http://www.amazon.com/Midwifes-Tale-Martha-Ballard-1785-1812/dp/0679733760&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

Twenty years after its initial publication, Laurel Thatcher Ulrich’s Pulitzer Prize winning monograph A midwife’s tale: the life of Martha Ballard based on her diary, 1785–1812 (1990) still serves as a major benchmark in women’s labour/economic history mainly because it provides scholars with a window into the life of a turn-of-the-nineteenth-century lay American rural healer not through the comments of an outsider, but through the words of the healer herself. While, on the surface, Ballard’s encoded, repetitive, and quotidian diary may seem trivial and irrelevant to historians, as Ulrich notes, ‘it is in the very dailiness, the exhaustive, repetitious dailiness, that the real power of Martha Ballard’s book lies … For her, living was to be measured in doing’ (p. 9). By piecing together ‘ordinary’ primary source material to form a meaningful, extraordinary socio-cultural narrative, Ulrich elucidates how American midwives, such as Martha Ballard, functioned within the interstices of the private and public spheres. A midwife’s tale is thus not only methodologically significant, but also theoretically important: by illustrating the economic contributions that midwives made to their households and local communities, and positioning the organizational skill of multitasking as a source of female empowerment, it revises our understanding of prescribed gender roles during the early American Republic (1783–1848). Even though A midwife’s tale is clearly limited in terms of time (turn-of-the-nineteenth century) and place (rural Maine), it deserves the renewed attention of historians – especially those interested in gender relations and wage-earning, the economic value of domestic labour, and women’s work before industrialization.

</p>

<p>[Cambridge</a> Journals Online - Abstract](<a href=“MIDWIFERY AND WOMEN'S WORK IN THE EARLY AMERICAN REPUBLIC: A RECONSIDERATION OF LAUREL THATCHER ULRICH'S A MIDWIFE'S TALE | The Historical Journal | Cambridge Core”>MIDWIFERY AND WOMEN'S WORK IN THE EARLY AMERICAN REPUBLIC: A RECONSIDERATION OF LAUREL THATCHER ULRICH'S A MIDWIFE'S TALE | The Historical Journal | Cambridge Core)</p>

<p>

During the Second World War, women proved that they could do “men’s” work, and do it well. With men away to serve in the military and demands for war material increasing, manufacturing jobs opened up to women and upped their earning power. Yet women’s employment was only encouraged as long as the war was on. Once the war was over, federal and civilian policies replaced women workers with men.

</p>

<p>[Women</a> and Work After World War II . Tupperware! . WGBH American Experience | PBS](<a href=“http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/tupperware-work/]Women”>Women and Work After World War II | American Experience | Official Site | PBS)</p>

<p>

they were shipyard workers, welders, factory laborers, secretaries and phone operators. Four million additional workers were needed in industry and the armed forces during World War II, and women fulfilled much of this demand. Encouraged by war propaganda (especially in magazines), eight million women began working during the War (Halberstam 588). The Ladies’ Home Journal Magazine pictured a woman combat pilot on one of thecovers (Halberstam 588). Stories described “women secretly but bravely dabbing their eyes and forcing encouraging smiles upon their faces as their husbands and sons, their brothers and lovers march off to war” (Diedrich 3). Newspapers were full of happy women doing “men’s work” in factories, offices and farms. Rosie the Riveter, a sexually attractive, strong, working woman, became a heroine (Diedrich 4). But, two years after the War, almost two million women lost their jobs (Halberstam 588). Some women accepted the return to home readily. Others protested. While the country attempted to create a new and exciting future, women’s roles also changed, leading to feelings of isolation and worthlessness. Betty Friedan later identified this changing emotion in The Feminine Mystique as a “problem that has no name.”

</p>

<p>[What</a> Happened to Rosie?](<a href=“http://universityhonors.umd.edu/HONR269J/projects/hchunt/paper.htm]What”>http://universityhonors.umd.edu/HONR269J/projects/hchunt/paper.htm)</p>

<p>and also:</p>

<p><a href=“Working Class Rosies: Women Industrial Workers during World War II on JSTOR”>Working Class Rosies: Women Industrial Workers during World War II on JSTOR;

<p>After WWII some of the best jobs were factory jobs and it was decided men needed the jobs. Women’s salaries are still recovering from that decision imho. It still impacts new graduates imho.</p>

<p>Female graduates earning less isn’t a new problem. It seems many moms of college age children and new graduates reading this thread immediately got that. I think we have to quit disadvantaging mothers to solve the problem. ymmv</p>

[busdriver11]

<p>Apparently women have had the advantage over men in this latest recession. One statistic is, “Men have still lost more net jobs than women have since the start of the recession in December 2007, with men losing a net 4.9 million jobs, while women have lost 2.5 million jobs.” </p>

<p>“And even though child care workers usually don’t make much, won’t a recent female graduate pay more than $38 a week for someone to watch her child so she can work for a salary? I have no idea. I hope so”</p>

<p>I think the only person who would take $38 to watch a child would be one’s mother. The going rate is probably ten times that much, no matter where you live.</p>

<p>You know, I’d think the best bets for companies would be to hire older women, like most of us on cc. Our kids are (or almost are) out of the house, so we don’t have that responsibility, and we are healthier than men our age. We’d probably work more and it would be less risk hiring us.</p>

[momof2kids]

<p>It annoys me that women earn less. It annoys me that so many dismiss the research results without realizing that well crafted data take into account time out of the work force, hours worked, etc. (I am “statistics literate” and follow the discussion above). I chose to be flexible for my family and accepted a lower earning path. But, if my D choses a traditional path with consistent full time work, why will she be paid less than a man? And, there are plenty of dads that do their fair share of parenting (leaving the office to make the child care deadline, staying home with a sick kid, watching a daytime recital from time to time) without (collectively) getting penalized for it.</p>

[poetgrl]

<p>I can’t discuss this without getting political, at this point, but I find your posts very interesting Ahl. It is one of the main reasons France is a great place to have a baby. They have had trouble repopulating and encourage and value this. In the past, when this problem has arisen, religion was used as a way to “force” women to bear children: see : Rome. Hence the Roman Catholic Religion’s stance on “choice,” though I doubt they even understand they are being dictated to by Constantine’s fear of underpopulation. And, from there I can go on and on, but will not.</p>

<p>Anyone in the way of that storm, you guys be careful. I hear it’s a heckuva phenom.</p>

[Kajon]

<p>I cannot decide which is worse.</p>

<p>1) being discriminated against</p>

<p>2) not having a job so I can be discriminated against</p>

[ucbalumnus]

<p>Regarding the pay of child care workers: it is likely limited because once it gets high enough, customers will take care of their own children instead of paying for child car services, even if it means foregoing working for pay outside the home. Remember that working for pay outside the home subjects the income to payroll and income taxes, so the amount one is willing to spend on child care services is limited to a fraction of what one can earn working for pay outside the home.</p>

[dadx]

<p>Here’s an interesting list that you never hear much about. </p>

<p>[Women</a> CEOs of the Fortune 1000 : Catalyst](<a href=“http://www.catalyst.org/publication/271/women-ceos-of-the-fortune-1000]Women”>http://www.catalyst.org/publication/271/women-ceos-of-the-fortune-1000)</p>

<p>Its worthwhile (for ambitious or curious people) to look at the backgrounds of women who hold these jobs. They are filled with ambitious and smart people who are willing to put their careers ahead of their family life. They are also filled with women who have educational backgrounds that are biased toward the hard sciences. That is likely to be true also of the women who are in high paying jobs, but not quite CEO level</p>

<p>I know that the ostensible studies attempt to adjust for everything to make sure that they are comparing apples to apples, but I have serious doubts that its done correctly. The biggest difference in male/female compensation comes from working at different jobs.</p>

[poetgrl]

<p>Right, but the “problem” with that argument UCB is that it doesn’t factor in why we socialize things like Police Force, Fire Dept and Military, traditional male roles, and subject traditional female roles to “market forces.”</p>

<p>The tipping point will come when society values the work of raising children as a “good” for all and not the “mere” thing it is now seen to be. Why is the primary purpose of the government to provide military, police, fire, education? Because it was put in place by a certain group of people. </p>

<p>As Einstein said, and I’m probably paraphrasing, the problems we need to solve cannot be solved by the thinking that got us here to begin with.</p>

[ChrisTKD]

<p>The AAUW is an advocacy group for women. Even with the best of itentions bias will enter their analysis and summary conclusions. I could take the same charts that they prepared and write a summary conclusion that women earn 5% more than males in engineering/software engineering/archtitecture (see 2007 report page 16). AAUW dismisses that alleged pay discepancy as representing only a small number of women. They make no attempt to determine whether this alleged difference is explained by other reasons or even makes sense. Yet the differences in pay for medical professionals, educators, administrative/clerical/legal all are at similar %s where women account for the majority in their sample size.</p>

<p>It’s more interesting to look at the wage comparisons for occupations where men and women are more equally represented in the sample size (let’s say 40-60% for each). Here the pay discrepancies appear large (women only 75%-88% of males). But, I’m looking at the occupation classifications (e.g., business and management) and I can easily say that this category is not a single occupation. Go to any college career survey and you can see that a degree in accounting on average pays a lot more than a degree in marketing. AAUW therefore did not control for occupation differences.</p>

[ucbalumnus]

<p>

@busdriver11

You know, I’d think the best bets for companies would be to hire older women, like most of us on cc. Our kids are (or almost are) out of the house, so we don’t have that responsibility, and we are healthier than men our age.

</p>

<p>To the extent that the cost of employer-provided medical insurance pressures hiring decisions (sometimes in illegal ways), is it necessarily advantageous for women (even in the absence of pregnancy-related costs) compared to men of the same age? Medical care cost is not necessarily the same as health, since the recommended screenings list is larger for women, and a lot of men really do not like going to the doctor.</p>

[alh]

<h1>96</h1>

<p>"As Einstein said, and I’m probably paraphrasing, the problems we need to solve cannot be solved by the thinking that got us here to begin with. "
:):):)</p>

<p>…</p>

<p>[Academia.edu</a> | The care paradox: devaluing and idealising care, the mother, and mother nature | vinca bigo](<a href=“(PDF) The care paradox: devaluing and idealising care, the mother, and mother nature | vinca bigo - Academia.edu”>(PDF) The care paradox: devaluing and idealising care, the mother, and mother nature | vinca bigo - Academia.edu)</p>

<p>Nancy Folbre has done some interesting work. However, lots of it is inevitably political. You can google if you aren’t familiar with her and want to explore the subject.</p>

[GladGradDad]

<p>All of these ‘studies’ are too general and tend to end up comparing apples and oranges - that’s much of what’s been discussed on this thread - i.e. some of the higher paying majors are mostly filled with males through self-selection.</p>

<p>Does anyone on this thread know of particular instances you’re familiar with and were privy to where a person was not hired specifically because of the gender when no attributes associated with the gender were relevant (i.e. jobs that don’t require a certain physical strength)? Do you know of any instances where a manager said - “We’re offering that candidate less of a starting salary because she’s a female” or where they said “We’re giving her less of an increase because she’s female”, or even if they didn’t explicitly state it, do you know of cases where a manager specifically behaved that way?</p>

<p>I’m asking because I know that I (a male) would never consider gender in remuneration because it’s not relevant in the least and I don’t know of any managers I’ve had that have done this either (but it’s possible I wouldn’t know).</p>