is this fascinating New York Times article: For Young Earners in Big City, a Gap in Women’s Favor. Some excerpts:
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 analysis…. shows that women of all educational levels 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. Nationwide, that group of women made much less: 89 percent of the average full-time pay for men.
Just why young women at all educational levels in New York and other big cities have fared better than their peers elsewhere is a matter of some debate. But a major reason, experts say, is that women have been graduating from college in larger numbers than men, and that many of those women seem to be gravitating toward major urban areas.
Melissa J. Manfro, a 24-year-old lawyer who was raised in upstate New York, offered her own theory on why younger female lawyers are outearning their male peers: a desire to begin their careers earlier to prepare for starting families.
“It seems that women tend to take less time off between college and law school, and therefore become more senior, and, hence, make more money, at a younger age,†she said. “I would, of course, like to think that means that women know what they want sooner than men. But it probably has more to do with the unfortunate fact that women need to keep in mind biological time constraints and feel a great deal of pressure to build an entire career before refocusing on marriage and children.â€
Though the analysis showed women making strides, it also showed that men were in some ways moving backward. Among all men — including those with college degrees — real wages, adjusted for inflation, have declined since 1970. And among full-time workers with advanced degrees, wages for men increased only marginally even as they soared for women. Nationally, men’s wages in general declined while women’s remained the same.
I’ll post on this next week.
If these findings are correct, this is absolutely devastating research that undermines arguments in favor of government solutions for gender income inequality (e.g., “comparable worth” legislation). According to comparable worth theories, jobs classes filled chiefly by women should be paid the same as those classes chiefly paid by men, with salaries calculated on a scale of “socioeconomic value” instead of market forces. In the work force today, this new evidence suggests that market forces may be effectively producing the sort of closing of the gender gap without intrusive economic policies. Indeed, the bad news for men just might have men’s rights advocates now clamoring for government relief for the very real setbacks in men’s earning power over the past 37 years.
“Indeed, the bad news for men just might have men’s rights advocates now clamoring for government relief for the very real setbacks in men’s earning power over the past 37 years.”
———
No, it might have them clamoring “Leave me the fuck alone, just like I’ve always said”.
But I’m sure the chivalrous men will continue to provide the correct infrastructure for these high-earning women.
Finding that childless young women in certain urban areas make more than their male counterparts is “absolutely devastating”? Seems to me all it shows is that if you go to college, don’t have kids and move somewhere they pay a lot, you do pretty well.
But good point, joe. I eagerly await MRAs pointing out that men’s lesser income must be a result of their own choices, and that it’s foolish to bring in the nanny state to try to help men fight nonexistent discrimination.
mythago: perhaps. what i think is most devastating is the finding that men’s income has fallen significantly since 1970 across all categories — not the same for women. and this, with no government intervention in the market. what leg could “comparable worth” theories possibly stand on now, with the gender income gap not only closing, but reversing?
Who is pushing laws mandating “comparable worth”?
But a major reason, experts say, is that women have been graduating from college in larger numbers than men, and that many of those women seem to be gravitating toward major urban areas.
Well, that’s interesting, but it doesn’t answer the question posed in the previous sentence. Unless by “at all education levels of education” you mean “averaged across all levels of education,” in which case a greater number of female college graduates would increase the overall average pay of women across all levels of education (assuming the lower levels of education don’t show comparable increases in numbers). But then, that would make the phenomenon that is the subject of the article something very different.
Mythago: “Who is pushing laws mandating ‘comparable worth’?”
A better question: Who is pushing for state sponsored daycare, so that women can get paid a lot WITHOUT necesarilly having to refrain from having kids?
Seems to me that this study shows that at least some women have finally figured out the definition of “opportunity cost” and accepted the fact that no, you can’t have it all. Nobody gets to have it all. If you want to be paid more, sacrifices will be necessary.
Then again, we’ll see what happens when these women age 21 to 30 get a little closer to menopause. If they start whining about the evil patriarchal system that made them choose between a high-powered career and children we’ll know nobody has learned anything.
Soon societies, too, will realize that they “can’t have it all”–that is, they cannot have both the economic growth achieved by the full-time employment of women in the workplace and the demographic growth/full time unpaid social work of women who devote their time to raising children.
Consider the “population problems” of Europe and Japan, where the population is aging and there are fewer children being born to support them. In Japan, where women are expected to quit their jobs upon having children (if not marriage) and there are few gov’t/social supports for working mothers, women have largely opted out of marriage and children. Hence, a “population crisis”. France and Sweden, however, have high levels of social support for working mothers, and a higher number of children per woman.
“full time unpaid social work of women who devote their time to raising children”
Gee, then how do they pay the rent if it’s “unpaid”. I sometimes see these “unpaid” workers driving around in a Mercedes or other nice car. Unpaid Heather Mills just got a nice chunk of change.
“Unpaid” doesn’t quite tell the whole story, thus it’s misleading (and meant to be).
A better question:
Well, no, joe was declaring that ‘comparable worth’ is dead. I was asking when it was last seen alive.
Nobody gets to have it all.
Yes, that’s why men’s magazines are full of laments about how men have to choose between a career and fatherhood, and make agonizing choices about whether to stay home from work with their kids rather than going forward with careers.
I get the sense, Chief, that you’re going to be disappointed when a lot of those women hit 30 (gasp! one foot int he grave!) and, nope, aren’t particularly sad that they decided to make money, not change diapers. But then, all the whining about the “birth dearth” is coming from your side, isn’t it? Yell at the bitches that they need to go home and have babies, and tell them tough luck if they can’t also make a living.
Mythago, I’m not going to care either way. Got my own life to live.
Look, as far as I’m concerned a woman is certainly welcome to pursue whatever career she wants, cut the best deal for herself she can, forge whatever life pleases her. But the basic laws of biology and physics are not going to be suspended for her. She’s got a comparitively limited time to have kids if that’s what she wants (and yes, I know not every woman does, and the point is moot for those who don’t). She’s going to have to take off at least a few months per kid to actually have the kid, and then what does she do? If she can find a good daycare situation, willing family members or a partner who is willing to quit work and care for the kid, so be it. Wade back into the working world if that’s what she wants. And as this article proves, if a woman is willing to put in the time and education she’ll probably do as well as a male counterpart.
But if she can’t find those things…well, I see little reason why the government should take from other people’s pockets in order to provide that daycare for her.
Chief, I thought the myth of successful, career oriented women going through life mateless and childless had long since been put to rest. The facts are:
1) The vast majority of educated, career women do marry…
2) …and have children, and…
3) …their marriages are much less likely to fail.
Those of us who are pushing for childcare assistance tend to be more concerned in the familial and financial health of our less educated, lower income neighbors.
So, I’m not quite sure what you are getting at here.
Chief, what you’re resolutely refusing to consider is that, in most cases, Career Girl didn’t go off and gestate the baby all by herself. “Let Dad take care of the parenting” is an option notably absent from your list, and you also don’t see fit to apply the same reasoning to daddies–who, other than the few months taken off per kid that you refer to, is in the same situation as mommies. Why isn’t Daddy fussing about finding daycare or wading back into the working world? Do you think every mother with a job is a single mother?
(As for daycare, really Mom only needs to wait until the child is old enough to go to public school. At that point, everyone’s snippery about taxpayer-funded daycare and ‘dumping your kids on somebody else’ inverts, and Mom is expected to send her children off to taxpayer-funded caretaking in an institutional setting. But that’s OK, because it’s school, and only weirdos don’t ship the kids off to school. I didn’t invent this system, I’m just the messenger.)
I thought the myth of successful, career oriented women going through life mateless and childless had long since been put to rest
What, you mean the idea that all those uppity career-seeking bitches who put money ahead of the Biological Clock will end up bitter, sterile spinsters, endlessly taking IVF treatments as they bemoan their fading looks and lack of a man? If only.
But the notion that being the primary caretaker of children–or, for that matter, merely being a mommy–has no effect on a woman’s career is far from a myth. It’s simply assumed that dealing with the kids is mom’s problem, and that dad doesn’t have to worry about “choosing to stay home” or “having it all”.
You’re old enough to remember that article “I Want a Wife”, right?
Mythago: “‘Let Dad take care of the parenting†is an option notably absent from your list”–did you miss the part where I said a woman could “find a partner who is willing to quit work and care for the kid?” If the working mommy/househusband model works for two people, so be it.
“Why isn’t Daddy fussing about finding daycare or wading back into the working world?” Umm, because men realize the bills aren’t going to pay themselves and the family has to be supported, so whining about it will do absolutely no good? As a single father (and one without even the dubious benefit of an ex wife I could occasionally let care for the kids every other weekend or so), I can tell you there are times I’d love to blow off work and spend more time with the kids. My creditors would tolerate very little of this. I can also tell you that writing that weekly daycare check occasionally gives me a cramp in the wrist, but I have to do it and it’s my responsibility and nobody else’s.
Ahunt: “I thought the myth of successful, career oriented women going through life mateless and childless had long since been put to rest” For a myth that is at rest it seems to be rolling out of bed and inspiring women to complain on a fairly regular basis.
For a myth that is at rest it seems to be rolling out of bed and inspiring women to complain on a fairly regular basis.
If women = Mo Dowd, sure. I’ve heard precisely zero women of those that I know in real life make that complaint.
mythago said: “But then, all the whining about the “birth dearth†is coming from your side, isn’t it?”
Nope, it is not coming from my group. In fact, MRAs are advocating the marriage strike and encouraging men to get vasectomies and otherwise avoiding becoming a father at all costs. For men, children are the quickest and most certain way to modern slavery for a man.
Most all men I talk to celebrate the notion that women appear to finally be at least trying to do their fair share re. contributing to the family income, especially since feminists have steadily upped the nagging vis-a-vis men and housework. When a woman earns more than a man, to the point that the man can qiut his job and hang out at home, we MRAs are ecstatic.
As for the education gap, that’s directly attributable to the feminization of our K-12 and higher education systems, which not only have become unfriendly but in many cases hostile to boy’s/men’s interests. This is something that we desperately need to address and correct as soon as possible. It is completely unaccetable to have men opting-out of higher education – it’s a invitation to intellectual and cultural mediocracy that no modern culture should tolerate.
Mythago–”As for daycare, really Mom only needs to wait until the child is old enough to go to public school. At that point, everyone’s snippery about taxpayer-funded daycare and ‘dumping your kids on somebody else’ inverts, and Mom is expected to send her children off to taxpayer-funded caretaking in an institutional setting. But that’s OK, because it’s school, and only weirdos don’t ship the kids off to school. I didn’t invent this system, I’m just the messenger”
Missed the gist of this the first time through…are you coming out in favor of home schooling, Mythago? If so, pass the ammo, we’re in agreement on something again.
are you coming out in favor of home schooling, Mythago?
More not-in-favor of people who think institutional daycare is A-OK when they do it and they call it “school”.
In fact, MRAs are advocating the marriage strike and encouraging men to get vasectomies and otherwise avoiding becoming a father at all costs.
I don’t mean to give you a heart attack by agreeing with you, but, er.
(Except for the “hanging out at home” bit. I really hope you MRAs would not cheer me if I came home from work and asked my chasing-kids-all-day-spouse why dinner wasn’t waiting and the house wasn’t perfectly clean, because for fuck’s sake he was HOME all day.)