« September Touchstone | Main | Corporate Pedophilia »
August 03, 2007
Sex & Wages in the City
A big-city wage shift took place in, beginning in 2000 according to a story in the International Herald Tribune:
Young women in New York and several of the nation's other largest cities who work full time have forged ahead of men in wages, according to an analysis of recent census data.
The shift has occurred in New York since 2000 and even earlier in Los Angeles, Dallas and a few other cities.
The analysis was prepared by Andrew Beveridge, a demographer at Queens College, who first reported his findings in Gotham Gazette, published online by the Citizens Union Foundation. It shows that all women from 21 to 30 living in New York City and working full time made 117 percent of men's wages, and even more in Dallas, 120 percent.
Does this represent wage inequity, or just that women are getting better jobs than men in these cities? Of course, with the percentage of men in college now below that of women, eventually the salaries will be effected.
Posted by James M. Kushiner at 04:06 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00e393359c718834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sex & Wages in the City:
» Thirty Three Things (v. 24) from the evangelical outpost
1. A Brief Primer on the Problem of Evil 2. How Products Are Made explains and details the manufacturing process of a wide variety of products, from daily household items to complicated electronic equipment and heavy mach... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 5, 2007 10:37:46 PM
Comments
Conservative economists have noted for more than a decade that when one normalizes for years of experience and hours worked, women were actually making more money than men. The apparent bias towards men is due to men of a given age having worked more years (and generally more hours per year) than women of the same age. This is due not only to childbirth and motherhood, but to choices women make regarding both the place of work in their priorities and the types of work they are willing to do. In other words, women are different from men. Shocking!
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 3, 2007 5:32:56 PM
I am afraid I strongly doubt the assertion of this article, if read accurately:
> It shows that all women from 21 to 30 living in New York City
> and working full time made 117 percent of men's wages, and even
> more in Dallas, 120 percent.
I think what they mean is that women from 21 to 30 living in NYC make ON AVERAGE 117 percent of (average) men's wages, etc.
If really ALL women from 21 to 20 living in NYC made that much it would have to include cleaners, sales clerks, McDonald's servers, etc and I find that hard to believe.
Posted by: Wolf N. Paul | Aug 3, 2007 6:42:59 PM
Surely this can't be right! Why, just the other day I read on a feminist blog that women still only make 70c for every $1 a man makes. the International Herald Tribune is probably run by a bunch of neanderthal patriarchalist woman-haters, trying to make me think the sisterhood has outpaced men, hmmph!
Kamilla
Posted by: Kamilla | Aug 3, 2007 8:07:46 PM
>>>If really ALL women from 21 to 20 living in NYC made that much it would have to include cleaners, sales clerks, McDonald's servers, etc and I find that hard to believe.<<<
Without seeing the study methodology it is hard to tell, but the only really valid way to make this determination is comparing specific labor categories broken down by years of experience and number of hours worked. And when you do that, women do make as much or more than men. Women are underrepresented in certain jobs, but that is not due to discrimination so much as self-selection: women simply do not enter certain fields, and cannot be made to do so. Many of the fields that are predominantly male are either dangerous, or physically rigorous, or require excessive commitments of time, all of which deter women. And, for the same reasons, they also tend to be highly compensated. By bundling all labor categories, and by not including experience and billable hours, you end up with an apparent bias for men and against women.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 3, 2007 8:41:25 PM
My experience in work has always been that men make more money than women. I hear the stories about how the feminist women are pushing men out of the workplace but I've yet to see it in any of the places I've worked.
My company is very typical. The people at the very top are almost all men. There's only one woman in upper management. The next level down is overwhelmingly male but not as male dominated as the top. In that level, the women work much harder than the men, i.e. the female VPs are always in the office while the male VPs aren't. The level beneath that is overwhelmingly female. I work in healthcare and that level is always dominated by female nurses topping out. I'm in that level (I'm not a nurse). A guy comes in as a director and it's a safe bet he'll be a VP in a few years. A woman comes in as a director and it's a safe bet she'll be a director forever.
The doctors I've worked with are overwhelmingly male. I've heard med school is now 50/50 but I don't see a 50/50 split between practicing physicians, even amongst young doctors. The women tend to self-segregate to specialties where they don't have to work as many hours.
I think there may be some truth to the statistics about women outearning men. My observation is that in that entry level positions are skewed towards women. I wouldn't be surprised if the female college grad outearns her male counterpart. But I don't think that's the case ten years down the road. At least that's not what I've observed in my professional life.
Another explanation for this might be that I suspect that working class women are beginning to out-earn working class men. Many of these women have kids they need to support. The men don't have that burden to motivate them to move ahead.
This is all anecdotal but until I see this supposed female superiority in my professional and personal life I'm not going to believe it.
Posted by: Jennifer | Aug 3, 2007 9:03:42 PM
>>>My experience in work has always been that men make more money than women.<<<
Always? Really? Just what do you mean by this statement? Are you speaking about all men always make more money than all women? Or that some men make more money than some women? Or that when men and women have exactly the same job description, and exactly the same amount of experience, and work the same number of hours (compensated and uncompensated), men always make more? You need to be specific.
>>>My company is very typical. The people at the very top are almost all men. There's only one woman in upper management. <<<
Ever wonder what is required of upper management types? Perhaps if you knew and understood, you would realize that getting to the top of the dung heap requires a certain degree of commitment bordering on obsession that most women are not willing to make; they have other priorities--which is neither good nor bad, just a fact.
>>>The next level down is overwhelmingly male but not as male dominated as the top. In that level, the women work much harder than the men, i.e. the female VPs are always in the office while the male VPs aren't. <<<
I find this hard to believe--but I also think that it's how smart, not how long you work that counts.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 3, 2007 9:36:50 PM
"If really ALL women from 21 to 20 living in NYC made that much it would have to include cleaners, sales clerks, McDonald's servers, etc and I find that hard to believe."
Compare this to men in the same category, who also include cleaners, sales clerks, McDonald's servers, etc...
Posted by: Peter Gardner | Aug 3, 2007 11:16:47 PM
Jennifer,
Maybe it's the hospital/system you work in. Our former DON moved on up to VP, as and when expected. But then our owners have always been women - The Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth.
Kamilla
Posted by: Kamilla | Aug 3, 2007 11:21:43 PM
>>Does this represent wage inequity, or just that women are getting better jobs than men in these cities? <<
According to the IHT article, 53 percent of women in their 20s working in New York in 2005 were college graduates, compared with only 38 percent of men in the same age range, which explains the discrepancy in earnings. For whatever reason, college-educated women in their 20s seem disproportionately attracted to big cities. One of the women interviewed in the article suggests this is due to pressure on young women to establish careers before starting families.
Posted by: Francesca | Aug 4, 2007 12:28:02 AM
>>>For whatever reason, college-educated women in their 20s seem disproportionately attracted to big cities.<<<
The same reason Willy Sutton was attracted to banks.
>>>According to the IHT article, 53 percent of women in their 20s working in New York in 2005 were college graduates, compared with only 38 percent of men in the same age range<<<
With women now comprising something like 55% of all undergraduates, this trend will continue and expand. However, there may be a backlash as a shortage in the essential trades and crafts causes wages to rise in jobs that do not require college and are filled mainly by men--electrician, carpenter, plumber, computer and electronic technicians. Even in college, men predominate in the "hard" disciplines like science and math, while women are dominant in the social sciences and (above all) the "pseudo disciplines" (gender studies, multicultural studies, minority studies, etc.). The business world has only a limited capacity to absorb such drones, and the increasing squishiness of the social science curriculum is also devaluing a BA or even an MA as a sign that a person has marketable analytical and rhetorical skills.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 4, 2007 7:12:21 AM
>>>Maybe it's the hospital/system you work in. Our former DON moved on up to VP, as and when expected. But then our owners have always been women - The Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth.<<<
Until her retirement, my mother worked as a microbiologist in the New York City Hospital Corporation. By the end of her tenure, she was deputy director of the lab. Her boss was also a woman. The head of serology was a woman, too. The head of parisitology was a man--in fact, most of the parisitologists were men. But what woman in her right mind wants to spend her whole day looking at stool samples after her kids are out of diapers?
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 4, 2007 7:14:45 AM
I recently read about a study showing that men have better negotiating skills than women in the workplace, so end up higher paid. In my case it's true. I'm the only woman at my level in the small company where I work. I was shocked a few years ago to realize that every other VP had a company car except me. I asked for one and got it, but I was nervous asking for it and wasn't sure I would be given one. I know of the demands of one guy when he was hired, and it was beyond what I had been getting -- just because I lack the skills or chutzpah or whatever it is that enables people to get more. But I'm of an older generation -- maybe today's young women have learned to be more aggressive that way from being told all their lives how wonderful and deserving and discriminated against they are.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Aug 4, 2007 7:38:43 AM
Many years ago, I took a job as an associate at a small law firm. There were two other associates working there at the time. After I was hired, one of them came and thanked me for some benefits they had just received. It appears that after I negotiated for them as part of the hiring process, the same benefits were extended to the other associates (one woman and one man). The other associate asked how I got them to give me the benefits. I replied, "I asked for them." Frankly, those benefits were not even a sticking point and the other two could have undoubtedly had them much earlier had they just asked.
Posted by: GL | Aug 4, 2007 7:51:17 AM
"Ever wonder what is required of upper management types? Perhaps if you knew and understood, you would realize that getting to the top of the dung heap requires a certain degree of commitment bordering on obsession that most women are not willing to make; they have other priorities--which is neither good nor bad, just a fact."
Actually I understand very well what it takes to be an "upper management type" which is why I'm not there myself. I don't want to work those hours. Women need to give up more than men to get to those positions. For example, the women I've known in those positions often have no children. The men almost always have children.
"I find this hard to believe--but I also think that it's how smart, not how long you work that counts."
Women tend to be insecure so feel the need to work more hours to prove themselves.
I would never agree that intelligence is what really counts in a modern American corporation. I think a big part of it is being the right 'type,' i.e. fitting the mold, and that's there where men have an advantage because the 'mold' is a white middle class man who is married with a kid or two.
For example, I know a guy who got a job at a hospital as an accountant. He was somewhat effeminate and we were all convinced that he was gay. He was a nice guy and smart. He got married and all of the sudden he started getting promoted. Once he was married, people could figure him out and he began to fit the mold.
"Maybe it's the hospital/system you work in. Our former DON moved on up to VP, as and when expected. But then our owners have always been women - The Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth."
The DON is always a woman and the VP the DON reports to is usually a women. That's the token female VP who's over quality, etc. But how many VPs of finance are women?
"Until her retirement, my mother worked as a microbiologist in the New York City Hospital Corporation. By the end of her tenure, she was deputy director of the lab. Her boss was also a woman. The head of serology was a woman, too."
These roles are almost always filled by women these days. Middle management in healthcare is overwhelmingly female now. 30 years ago it was overwhelmingly male.
My point here isn't to argue that there's discrimination. I think most of the imbalance is driven by people's choices in their careers.
I remember a guy once telling me that it was impossible for white men to get jobs anymore because of affirmative action. My response was how come I don't know any white men who don't have jobs?
Posted by: Jennifer | Aug 4, 2007 11:42:43 AM
One other thing anecdotal thing came to mind. Entry level law firm jobs are often awarded based on class rank and law school prestige. The prestige of law school one attends is based on undergraduate performance and the LSAT. Essentially high academic performance leads to higher earnings right out of law school. I'm not sure if that's statistically proven but the top ranked law students are more often women than men (at least that's what I saw at my top 20 law school). So right out of my law school, on average women made more than men.
Posted by: Jennifer | Aug 4, 2007 12:03:39 PM
>>>Women tend to be insecure so feel the need to work more hours to prove themselves.<<<
No, I think it has to do with "process orientation". I saw this when my daughters were active in Girl Scouting and went for their Silver Awards. The project requirement was not based so much on concrete accomplishments as with putting in the requisite hours. On the other hand, my Eagle Scout project did not have any minimum (or maximum) time limit on it--I sent in a proposal to do something (lay out and mark an historic trail in Brooklyn. I organized the people, got together the material, and got it done. Once the project was approved, I could have done it in a day or in a year, but the only criterion for judging the project was the quality of the work and how closely it matched what I had proposed.
I notice that lawyers, whether male or female, are also highly process oriented. Last summer I spent most of my time supporting a major law firm in a litigation effort. I saw more wasted motion than I ever thought possible, and most of the people involved were definitely male.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 4, 2007 3:54:56 PM
Perhaps if you knew and understood, you would realize that getting to the top of the dung heap requires a certain degree of commitment bordering on obsession that most women are not willing to make; they have other priorities--which is neither good nor bad, just a fact.
I don't think you meant to say that these other priorities -- which usually include child rearing -- are neither good nor bad. Obviously, they are good.
Posted by: Clark Coleman | Aug 4, 2007 10:29:11 PM
>>>I don't think you meant to say that these other priorities -- which usually include child rearing -- are neither good nor bad. Obviously, they are good.<<<
Both are good for specific persons. There are some people I would not trust to raise children under any circumstances--and I've worked for some of them. There are others who should never be allowed any sort of managerial authority--and I've worked for lots of them. In fact, there was significan overlap in those two groups. But for those who have the calling to motherhood or fatherhood (the vast majority of people, I believe), this is a positive good. For those who have the vocation for business (and it is a vocation, as Michael Novak has argued), it is also a positive good. If one can balance the two, that is better still. But, as with extracurricular activities, you sometimes cannot have it all and need to make choices.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 5, 2007 7:48:34 AM
I don't think the NYT article gave sufficient evidence to support its thesis, but I'd say that my own experience supports its claims. Among my acquaintances, men generally make more money than women with similar education and experience. I agree with people who've already mentioned that women typically feel less confident about asking for benefits and calculating salary ranges than men do. (I believe there's been some research that suggests the same thing.) I myself am usually a pretty assertive person, but I've definitely not been sufficiently assertive when applying for some positions in the past.
Posted by: Katherine Philips | Aug 6, 2007 10:22:31 AM
All the above post was to elaborate on the idea that if women are making more than men in NYC it's probably because they're significantly more educated and/or experienced, on average.
Posted by: Katherine Philips | Aug 6, 2007 10:24:32 AM
Stuart,
Do parisitologists have to do a lot of fieldwork in the French capital? :-)
Posted by: Gene Godbold | Aug 6, 2007 11:15:36 AM
No one is paid enough to live in New York City...
Posted by: Joe Long | Aug 6, 2007 11:24:19 AM
>>>Do parisitologists have to do a lot of fieldwork in the French capital? :-)<<<
If they did, they would have little trouble in collecting samples out of the gutters and back alleys.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 6, 2007 12:34:24 PM
NPR produced a story ("For Women, Pay Negotiations Can Bear Social Cost") following up on the NYT article:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12529237
Posted by: Katherine Philips | Aug 6, 2007 3:30:44 PM
I had a part time job when I was in college. I worked with two guys. Even though we were just part time we had to go through the typical idiotic review process. Part of the process was a self evaluation. I was brutally honest, e.g. I admitted to chatting sometimes during work and being late every once in a while. My male co-workers gave themselves glowing reviews and they were the ones that I chatted with. I remember thinking that it was so bizarre that they didn't even realize that they were being dishonest.
My boss brought me up and brought them down but I can't help but wonder if they ended up higher because they started higher. Of course there was no money on the table here. There weren't raises for part time students in this department. It was just extra cash for books.
I've always thought of that experience as an illustration of the fundamental differences between men and women.
Posted by: Jennifer | Aug 6, 2007 9:13:23 PM
>>>I've always thought of that experience as an illustration of the fundamental differences between men and women.<<<
I've always thought those self-examinations a waste of time, derived from the samokrtitika sessions so beloved of the Bolsheviks. A foof manager is also a good leader, and the leader knows his people as well as he knows himself. Of course, in reality, most managers are as clueless as the pointy-haired boss in Dilbert, so the whole thing is a farce, anyway.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 7, 2007 4:41:36 AM
>>I've always thought of that experience as an illustration of the fundamental differences between men and women.
<<
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
I think you are right in the sense that women, on the average, lack the self-esteem that men have. [I leave it to others to dig up the studies.] I've seen great men rise to greatness by virtue of there ability to get women to do a lot of work for them. I've seen women of great intelligence and ability who simply have to have a man around, regardless of his intelligence or ability. Something happens to one, and they plug in another.
Anyway, this is my opinion.
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Aug 7, 2007 6:44:51 AM
Bobby notes: I've seen women of great intelligence and ability who simply have to have a man around, regardless of his intelligence or ability. Something happens to one, and they plug in another.
Me, too, and the woman in question said that that was what she needed. She dumped a guy I'd grown to like when she went to do her residency because he was still in school and couldn't leave. A year later, she was married. She just had to have a guy around...
Posted by: Gene Godbold | Aug 7, 2007 9:22:56 AM
"...and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
Men and women differ greatly in responses to stress; "fight or flight" versus "tend and befriend" - as well as in the "project versus process oriented" modes which Stuart has alluded to. There are numerous exceptions, but over time and with a sufficient statistical sample, women are going to be more risk-averse and less aggressive in work behavior, and that's going to show up with lower average pay (and better average health, I suspect).
Not like we XY's are left out of the curse or anything:
"...cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground - "
Our lot has more physical struggle to it - plus there's a specific mention of vegetables, a part of the curse we ignore at our intestinal peril.
Posted by: Joe Long | Aug 7, 2007 9:43:05 AM
There's another difference between men and women: Men think vegetables are a curse and women don't.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Aug 7, 2007 2:00:02 PM
Hey,
I refuse to be brushed into the "anti-veggie" camp as a result of my reproductive organ. I love vegetables and so do slightly more than half of my male children. We love to grow them in the garden, we love to harvest them, and we especially love eating them. The only ones I don't particularly care for are brussel sprouts.
Posted by: Gene Godbold | Aug 7, 2007 2:06:54 PM
>>>The only ones I don't particularly care for are brussel sprouts.<<<
That's funny--they're on the menu tonight. Of course, it's still Dormition Fast. If you don't like veggies, don't be Orthodox, in communion with Rome or out.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 7, 2007 2:27:13 PM
I don't like Brussels sprouts either. The only food I don't like, I think.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Aug 7, 2007 2:31:16 PM
I thought disliking veggies was the point of their inclusion in fasting menus - after all, it's hardly mortifying to the flesh if you enjoy them, is it?
Posted by: Joe Long | Aug 7, 2007 2:32:48 PM
>>> thought disliking veggies was the point of their inclusion in fasting menus - after all, it's hardly mortifying to the flesh if you enjoy them, is it?<<<
Shhh! Don't tell.
In any case, what would you have me do? There are only a handful of foods I DON'T like (fried liver is one, sauerbraten is another).
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 7, 2007 2:37:44 PM
Not like saurbraten??? I'll have you deported to Treblinka, Stuart! :-)
I like virtually all veggies (except squash and related items), including brussel sprouts (which I got to like during my time in Germany, where they taste rather different than our varieties due to different soil -- not bitter afertaste). I particularly love the vegetables kids are supposed to hate -- spinach, broccoli, cauliflower, etc.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Aug 7, 2007 4:37:16 PM
>>>Not like saurbraten??? I'll have you deported to Treblinka, Stuart! :-)<<<
It has something to do with my mother's lack of culinary ability and an almost fatal case of gastroenteritis.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 7, 2007 4:39:40 PM
I don't like Brussels (at least outside the confines of the old city), but I do like their sprouts. Their beer is even better!
Posted by: Bill R | Aug 7, 2007 5:05:09 PM
>>>I don't like Brussels (at least outside the confines of the old city), but I do like their sprouts. Their beer is even better!<<<
I will second that most of Brussels is dreary beyond belief, but the Centrum is very nice, even if you don't like "moules", and the Trappist beer is excellent.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 7, 2007 5:45:25 PM
I see you all like this beer. I didn't try it but now I want to drink it.
Posted by: working girls uk | Nov 30, 2007 3:28:43 AM
Recent Comments
Bloggers
Popular Threads
Archives
OLD ARCHIVES 2002-2004
From May 2002–December 2004, Mere Comments was published via Blogger.com. Every post is still available at the link above.
Member since 12/2004