Young women in NYC earning more than young men

This is really encouraging to hear. I hope it's the signal of a continuing trend as the demographic discussed (21 to 30 years) grows older, although the real test, as the article mentions, will occur when women progress further in their careers:

quote:

---

It is not clear whether this is the front edge of a trend in which women will gradually move ahead of men in all age groups. Typically, women have fallen further behind men in earnings as they get older. That is because some women stop working altogether, work only part time or encounter a glass ceiling in promotions and raises.

---

I wonder if this trend is the same in Canadian urban centers? It would be interesting if someone crunched some similar numbers.

It is very good news. It's been way to long that women have been making less then men, especially single mothers.

Well I see it as a way for single mothers to finally make more...eventually.

I agree with you that it's probably due more to the fact that there are more career single women without children in those cities.

But whatever it takes!

By the way, I can count on one hand the number of couples that I know where the man stays at home full time to care for children while the woman works full time outside of the home. That is about as rare as spotting an albino squirrel.

No legislation and no action by employers will change that. It has to be a social change. But, what would be a catalyst for that change?

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
[b]Because the men are still hired to do the hgiher paying job discriptions where the qualifications are equal.

For example, in one of my social work classes there were 5 men and 23 women. The instructor stated that those 5 men would have team leading positions well before the women whom they graduated with would. A state ment that held true, do to the patriarchial systemic bias.[/b]

---

Employers likely are hesitant - in the current environment - to hire, promote or invest in the female candidate/employee because there is a strong likelihood that they will leave to raise children.

Unless the likelihood of that happening with a male candidate/employee is the same as with a female, that bias is going to exist.

So really, Sven's arguments still stand up. It is time lost to child rearing - as well as the potential for time lost to child rearing - that is at the heart of pay equity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
[b]Because a woman has been working in several professions during that time period and it is people who fail to realize this, such as yourself.[/b]

---

So, what professions does a stay-at-home mom practice that would, for example, make her a better engineer, lawyer, surgeon, etc. and put her on equal footing with another person (male or female) who practiced the specific profession for fifteen to twenty years without interruption? It’s absurd to think that the stay-at-home mom who returns to work outside of the home after a many years’ absence should be compensated the same as those who have remained in the profession the entire time. They simply are not worth as much to an organization.

For example, going to law school teaches a person basic legal principles. But, the most valuable lawyers are those with many years of experience who can provide practical counsel to a particular client because the lawyers have seen the same or similar problems countless times. If a lawyer practices law for three to five years after law school and then leaves the profession to stay home with children full time for fifteen years, that lawyer is simply not as valuable to a firm or to the lawyer’s clients as a lawyer who practiced law full time for twenty years.

But that is not evident to people who fail to realize the reality of that, such as yourself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
[b]It is the same, by far the majority of women go back to work after maternity leave, and men also get maternity leave here in Canada.

There is no time lost to child rearing, peoplewho think this are the largest problem there is.[/b]

---

I’m not talking about a three-month maternity leave. The duration of maternity leave is so short that it has no effect on the long term skills a person needs to have to practice a highly-skill profession. I’m talking about leaving the workforce for many, many years to raise children full time.

Let’s say you run a small architectural firm, remind. You pay new architects $40,000 right out of school and they earn $65,000 by their fourth year. In contrast, experienced architects in your firm with twenty years of experience earn $275,000. The reason for the difference in pay is because the experienced architects are able to do so much more in the same amount of time as an inexperienced architect (and in some cases, do things that a young architect is simply incapable of doing at all).

Now, let’s say that a person works as an architect for five years and then quits to stay at home with the kids for fifteen years and then returns to work at your firm. Are you going to pay that architect $275,000 when the architect returns because of the “many professions” practiced while staying home?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
[b]The challenge presented by what I am articulating here is that there is no “evil employer” to chastise and no legislation that can “fix” this problem. There’s no one to demonize for pay inequity [b][i]other than society generally[/b][/i].[/b]

---

Exactly. Looking at it from the perspective of employers it makes absolutely no sense to arbitrarily pay female workers less than males. To be profitable, they need to attract the best employees they can - holding back on wages of some of their staff just leaves them open to losing those employees to a rival.

Therefore, there must be some factor that reduces the "value" of female employees. It goes without saying that females are no less competent and talented than their male counterparts, so it must be something else. The answer is very likely that you have given - a tendency towards less time spent (and thus experience gained) in the workforce.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free_Radical:
[b]Exactly. Looking at it from the perspective of employers it makes absolutely no sense to arbitrarily pay female workers less than males. To be profitable, they need to attract the best employees they can - holding back on wages of some of their staff just leaves them open to losing those employees to a rival. [/b]

---

In the competitive capitalist system in which businesses operate, businesses must look at every possible means of gaining a competitive advantage, and that includes attracting, and then retaining, the most highly skilled employees that it can find. Our company has about 25,000 employees worldwide and we work very hard at attracting and retaining the best possible employees. It would simply be foolish of us to arbitrarily pay women less than men, simply because they were women.

Those who look at the gender equity issue too often think it’s simply a matter of making employers “get it” that they need to pay women the same as men. But, they ignore two key factors: (1) It is in employers’ best interest to attract and retain the best employees (men and women) and (2) 99% of stay-at-home parents who take years away from their profession are women.

To simply ignore those two factors is to not look at the issue honestly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1234567:
[b]AND the only reason why some professions are paying more now is that the youth today aren't going to commit themselves to anyone like their parents and grandparents did. The youth today pick and choose who and how long they will work. This is a huge change from the days when you worked for a company until you retired.[/b]

---

That’s right. An employee is not chained, for life, to the first company for which the employee goes to work. And if women at a particular company are systematically paid less than men who are equally skilled and experienced, those women will leave for companies that pay equally for similarly skilled and experienced employees. If I was paid 25% more than a woman attorney who had the same skills and years of experience that I have, you can bet she would leave here in a second if our company did not correct that. But, if I have twenty years of experience as a lawyer and woman law school classmate of mine spent fifteen of the last twenty years at home raising children, it would make no sense to pay her the same as me…and no employer in their right mind—who wanted to remain in business—would.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
[b]To say that this is all due to gender discrimination practices of employers is to not understand the problem.[/b]

---

Here's the thing, Sven. First of all, you're posting in the feminism forum when you've been told several times since your suspension that you're not allowed to post in the feminism and anti-racism forums anymore.

Secondly, how about not telling women they "don't understand the problem" of gender discrimination in the workplace, hmm?

Please, I'm asking you nicely because I don't want to ban you. Stay out of the feminism forum.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
[b]So, what professions does a stay-at-home mom practice that would, for example, make her a better engineer, lawyer, surgeon, etc. and put her on equal footing with another person (male or female) who practiced the specific profession for fifteen to twenty years without interruption? [/b]

---

I would bet very few women, if any, in those professions would choose to stay at home for 10-20 years. That is a strawman.

quote:

---

[b]It’s absurd to think that the stay-at-home mom who returns to work outside of the home after a many years’ absence should be compensated the same as those who have remained in the profession the entire time. They simply are not worth as much to an organization.[/b]

---

As above.

quote:

---

[b]But that is not evident to people who fail to realize the reality of that, such as yourself.[/b]

---

Here in Canada, as opposed to the USA, as I said above, the vast majority women return to work after maternmity leave is up, the fathers also get the same maternity leave pretty much, as the woman does.

If there is an assumption at play, here in Canada,leave sooned than men, they are wrong in their presumption.

I don't think there are many of us who don't recognize that women with children are put on the "mommy track" if they take maternity leaves and need to work reasonable hours in order to look after their kids, especially since women do way more unpaid domestic labour than men.

But that's not the ONLY reason for women making less than men. It would be convenient if we could blame it all on women for having babies and acquiescing to a larger share of the domestic and caring work at home, but I don't think that's really the case.

Another thread was recently posted which said that men not only feel more comfortable with asking for raises or negotiating higher pay, but they are rewarded for doing so whereas women are rebuffed when they do it. There is also the fact that, in a patriarchal society, lots of women gravitate toward gendered (low-paying) jobs and careers.

To simplistically say, well, it's women's choices that are leading to their lower pay, is not a very good analysis, feminist or otherwise.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]I'm pretty sure you have been. But in case you're right, I'm asking you now. The reason you were suspended is because of outrageously rude trolling in the feminism forum, and your propensity to dominate feminism threads with your male, and not overly feminist, point of view. As a result, I would like you to not post in this forum.[/b]

---

The reason I was suspended was because of the blow up with remind. And, rightfully so. And, I have refrained from getting in any conversation here with anyone that is even remotely like that blow up. In other words, I’m behaving. In contrast, the discussion here is legitimate and not “antifeminist”. It addresses a significant factor that leads to pay inequality that is too often ignored in favor of a simplified demonization of bigoted employers. In my early posts above, I explicitly acknowledged that gender discrimination is a factor in pay inequality. But, there are reasons why gender discrimination may not be the principal factor in pay inequality. I’m arguing that the patriarchal society expects women, not men, to stay at home with children, that that is the principal cause of pay inequality, and that there is no easy solution to address that (I think the solution must found in men staying at home with children at the same rate women do).

So, by stating that, you are now asking me to stay out of the feminism forum? I’ve already been admonished—with the vacation—for the prior blow up and I have refrained from engaging in any discussions like that. Are you [b][i]now[/b][/i] asking me to stay out of this forum because of the prior blow up? Or, is it because of what I’m posting here today? If it’s due to the former reason, I’ve already “served” my vacation and have behaved since that time. If it’s for the latter reason, I ask you to reconsider because what I’m advocating is neither a male or female perspective—but something that is, as Stephen Gordon noted above, something that is being legitimately debated.

Actually, apparently neither Sven, nor Stephen Gordon, actually read the article Stephen linked to, with any kind of perception.

Page 3 of the article, clearly supports my contentions that:

1. highly skilled women do not leave the job,

2. maternity leave addresses choices in staying or leaving to the positive for women, a particular factor in Canada, as opposed to the USA where paid maternity leave is not equal to Canada's system.

3. studies in trying to prove the theory of human capital, whereby women leaving, because of child bearing and their loss of experience creates the wage disparity is disproven by the theorists own attempts to prove it. Women who are paid well do not leave, and as such they actually have proven the single most important factor in wage disparity is on the job discrimination bias against women, based upon what are clearly misconceptions that women will leave to bear children for extended periods.

And Sven you were asked to stay out of the feminist forum, and your telling me, I have no understanding of factors in the wage disparity, is just another example why. Perhaps you should read the article Stephen linked to before you tried to draw support for your misconceptions from it?!

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Actually, apparently neither Sven, nor Stephen Gordon, actually read the article Stephen linked to, with any kind of perception.

---

Huh? [img]confused.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]All right, fair enough, Sven.[/b]

---

Thank you, Michelle.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free_Radical:
[b]You might want to read the summary a little more closely.[/b]

---

Please do read page 3 regarding the [b]findings[/b] of what happened regarding those women who had high paying jobs and who did not take maternity leave, not what the women were asking for.

They did not leave their highly skilled highly paid job positions, unlike what Sven and Stephen contended was the case. Nor like those other followers of the failed human capital theory, who had believed that this would be the case in regards to time accrued on the job and women not gaining time accrued, over a career time, equal to that of men in highly skilled highly paid job positions, because they would leave for maternity reasons.

The women who were highly skilled, and paid, did not leave and even more came back when maternity leave was offered.

Child care was a desire not the data collected about actual women who do, or do not leave the work force.

Why bother with the human capital theory Sven? It was already what you put forth that was in error, as I noted, just as the human capital theory was found to be a failure back into 2006 when the linked paper was published. And just like those who put forth the human capital theory to try and explain workplace discrimination was not present, and tried to postulate, as you did, that it was actually women themselves who were at fault for leaving to raise kids, and not acrruing work history. And just like you, they were proven to be in error, by their own studies no less.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
[b]they actually have proven the single most important factor in wage disparity is on the job discrimination bias against women[/b]

---

Who has “proven” this?

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
[b]Please do read page 3 regarding the findings of what happened regarding those women who had high paying jobs and who did not take maternity leave, not what the women were asking for.

They did not leave their highly skilled highly paid job positions, unlike what Sven and Stephen contended was the case.[/b]

---

I think it’s true that women with high-paying jobs tend to be those who have never left the workforce to take care of children in the first place. My partner is a perfect example of that. We have no kids and she has a long and successful career as a corporate lawyer, one of the top attorneys in her field in Minneapolis. And she’s compensated accordingly.

At the same time, I can name many, many other attorneys who have left the practice to stay home with their children. If they choose to practice law again, they will undoubtedly not be paid the same as their male colleagues who stayed in the practice without interruption, if they are absent from the profession for a long period of time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
[b]And just like those who put forth the human capital theory to try and explain workplace discrimination was not present, and tried to postulate, as you did, that it was actually women themselves who were at fault for leaving to raise kids, and not acrruing work history.[/b]

---

Actually, I don’t think that women are “at fault” for leaving the workforce to raise their kids. Rather, [b][i]society[/b][/i] (i.e., both women and men) is “at fault” for expecting [b][i]women[/b][/i] to be the ones who stay home with their children in 99% of the case when a parent stays home to care for children on a full-time basis.

Can you seriously argue that if men and women stayed home full time to care for children at equal rates that that wouldn’t significantly reduce the unequal pay earned by men and women?

Does gender discrimination occur in the workplace? Of course. But, is it the sole, or even principal, reason why there is a pay gap between women and men? Not from what I’ve read.

That being said, I would appreciate links to any economic studies that have been done that are contrary to that view.

Your ancedotal experience Sven means nothing actually, other than that may be true for your narrow group of peers in your city, though highly doubtfulm even there.

I can easily give my own ancedotal information that is close to the example you give of your partner, only the opposite.

I have a good friend, corporate lawyer, part of the legal team that actually drew up NAFTA, which kinda off put me on our friendship, but our partners remain friends so we just talk about our common interests like poker. Anyhow, she has her high paid career, on Howe St, along with 2 children. Is a hands on mom, and a good one. Never left the work force.

And by the way you stated professional women highly skilled and paid left the work force in high numbers and I stated they wouldn't. Apparently, again you did not read the article namely page 3, where it states they self select and stay in the workforce even though they have children.

And again this finding would be even more pertinent in Canada, where we do not ascribe to the false theory of "human capital".

It depends on what business you are in.

I really believe that as soon as a profession becomes equal in female representation, the pay goes down.

Good for you that you are fair but unfortunately that isn't the case everywhere.

Just personal experience. Waiting for you professors types to do a study.

Yeah, and in fact a lot of managers DO hire women specifically because they CAN get away with paying them less. Certainly that's common in the retail sector and other "pink collar" jobs like secretarial work.

My first "real job" was working in a bakery. My boss refused to hire male cashiers and counter staff. From the fact that men doing similar-skilled and labour-intensive work at the bakery were getting paid way more than we were, we knew that was the reason. Men wouldn't put up with the shit that we did.

Our fault? Maybe. I don't know. All I know is, I needed the job and didn't make waves until I could get out.