Wage Gender Gap

[gilbertrollins]

I was only suggesting that people usually frame the debate in terms of large corporations versus little workers. 

 

David and Goliath stories, though mesmerizing in drama, are an incorrect way to frame economic activity.

[ohgoodness]

No, the gender wage gap, according to the BLS data cited in the chart on the first page of the report I posted, has decreased by over 50% since 1979.  And that's before controlling for the important factors here discussed like occupation and whether or not the individual has children, after controlling for which the gap nearly disappears.

 

A) The number of issues that I have with calling that a "report" are too many to even recall but making any argument using quantitative data without a) presenting the proper source of data (i.e. more than "Source: BLS") and b. not providing any methodological breakdown for their "adjusted" gap should be dismissed straight away. 

 

Another major problem I have with that report would be that they see part-time female employment as as intervening factor.  Median usual weekly earnings of full-time workers does not really present an accurate representation of the american labor market with regards to gender discrimination.  The selection bias is huge. 

Edited April 16, 2013 by ohgoodness

[mbrown0315]

David and Goliath stories, though mesmerizing in drama, are an incorrect way to frame economic activity.

 

I guess. Still, I think a case could be made that statistical discrimination is not necessarily unfair if the information is good.

[gilbertrollins]

RE: deliberate discrimination and my aforementioned "boys' club" - I absolutely feel deliberately discriminated against as a woman in the law.  I have had attorneys AND clients treat me differently because I'm a woman.  You get called "little lady" or "miss" by male attorneys, which is incredibly demeaning.  I have had clients tell me they'd be more comfortable with a male attorney handling their case because men are "junkyard dog" attorneys.  My male coworker (who only has 1 year of seniority on me) has a lot more leeway in the office than I do and much less oversight/micromanagement by the partners.  I might get paid the same as my male counterpart, but I am definitely not treated the same.

 

Law is one of the oldest, still-standing professions in the occident.  I have a pet theory about "cultural hangover effect," that is that beyond the point in which the ecology of social structure has made one or another tradition functional in society, such traditions hang around because of the network effects and path dependency of the tradition.  So for instance, people still feel guilty about not finishing their plate at dinner, which was once an extraordinarily economically rational thing to worry about when food clocked in at eating up well over half of the modal person's income -- but makes little sense in a world with abundant and cheap food.  Since law is so old (and notably the academic professions as well), we might expect accordingly that social mores have more staying power in these institutions for no better reason than, "that's the way we always dun it 'round here."

 

The vast majority of occupations in the economy do not have these same historical roots.

Edited April 16, 2013 by econosocio

[gilbertrollins]

A) The number of issues that I have with calling that a "report" are too many to even recall but making any argument using quantitative data without a) presenting the proper source of data (i.e. more than "Source: BLS") and b. not providing any methodological breakdown for their "adjusted" gap should be dismissed straight away. 

 

To your first concern -- it's a report generated and published by economists employed at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.  These people are widely regarded by economists to be at the same stature of an R1 university economist.  And the Bureau of Labor Statistics is a widely cited and well known source of economic data on wages.  

 

The methodological breakdown you are asking for is in citation 4:

 

 

CONSAD Research Corporation. “An Analysis of Reasons for the Disparity in

Wages between Men and Women.” January 2009; www.consad.com/content/

reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf.

[ohgoodness]

As more workers demand these amenities as part of their compensation in the labor market, they will appear.  Given that wages rise along with economic growth and labor-saving technology, we should expect to see more of these amenities.

 

Where and how do you see such change occurring?  Seeing that the gender divide is a rather strong factor when it comes to structuring pathways, possible options and possible utility it seems rather strange to argue that men will, all of a sudden,  demand these amenities rather than increasing their possible wage development?  

[gilbertrollins]

I guess. Still, I think a case could be made that statistical discrimination is not necessarily unfair if the information is good.

 

That's what I was getting at.  I think statistical discrimination is actually a ubiquitous social sorting mechanism that is unavoidable, and that gender, racial, and other discrimination are a tiny subset of myriad criteria agents use to send and receive signals about the groups and behaviors they ascribe to.

[amlobo]

Law is one of the oldest, still-standing professions in the occident.  I have a pet theory about "cultural hangover effect," that is that beyond the point in which the ecology of social structure has made one or another tradition functional in society, such traditions hang around because of the network effects and path dependency of the tradition.  So for instance, people still feel guilty about not finishing their plate at dinner, which was once an extraordinarily economically rational thing to worry about when food clocked in at eating up well over half of the modal person's income -- but makes little sense in a world with abundant and cheap food.  Since law is so old (and notably the academic professions as well), we might expect accordingly that social mores have more staying power in these institutions for no better reason than, "that's the way we always dun it 'round here."

 

I mean, I think it's as cultural as any form of discrimination.  Generations of the "old way" have to die off before the "new way" can take hold and stick.  Women are relative newcomers to the law, and it will take a while for the boys club to disappear.  I could see how an industry that was more tech-oriented, and thus new "overall", might have less of that kind of culture.  

[gilbertrollins]

Where and how do you see such change occurring?  Seeing that the gender divide is a rather strong factor when it comes to structuring pathways, possible options and possible utility it seems rather strange to argue that men will, all of a sudden,  demand these amenities rather than increasing their possible wage development?  

 

My point was that workers have the demonstrated bargaining power to demand these maternity amenities should they choose to.  If they want pecuniary wages to hire daycare and nannies -- they'll get that.  

[gilbertrollins]

Generations of the "old way" have to die off before the "new way" can take hold and stick.

 

Culture is passed fluidly between generations.  But I definitely agree that these changes are forthcoming in law.  I was just arguing that gender discrimination in law is a poor exemplar of gender discrimination in the economy broadly, considering it is a particularly historically-rooted profession.

[mbrown0315]

That's what I was getting at.  I think statistical discrimination is actually a ubiquitous social sorting mechanism that is unavoidable, and that gender, racial, and other discrimination are a tiny subset of myriad criteria agents use to send and receive signals about the groups and behaviors they ascribe to.

 

True. I just think it gets really tricky. I think assuming that a woman can do fewer push-ups than a man can is reasonable statistical discrimination. Does that mean women in the military shouldn't serve in combat? Sounds like a lame argument to me.

[ohgoodness]

My point was that workers have the demonstrated bargaining power to demand these maternity amenities should they choose to.  If they want pecuniary wages to hire daycare and nannies -- they'll get that.  

 

It was a rather strange point to make since my argument was that there are other factors at play behind discrimination than the actual decisions as such. 

 

Within the model that you are arguing for - I see absolutely no agent of change whatsoever.  Things will change as they change.  Either you argue for the possibility of errors in the system (the non-rational actor) or you do not see change as a possibility either. 

Edited April 16, 2013 by ohgoodness

[gilbertrollins]

True. I just think it gets really tricky. I think assuming that a woman can do fewer push-ups than a man can is reasonable statistical discrimination. Does that mean women in the military shouldn't serve in combat? Sounds like a lame argument to me.

 

The levels of discrimination against women in the military, at least in America, are absolutely staggering.  It appears as if it's one of the only places other than the Catholic Church where anything approaching a widespread "Rape Culture" actually exists -- with it occurring regularly and enforced and legitimated by superior officers.

[ohgoodness]

True. I just think it gets really tricky. I think assuming that a woman can do fewer push-ups than a man can is reasonable statistical discrimination. 

 

Not long ago it was reasonable to assume that a person of any colour except white could neither read nor write.  The result of acting upon this premise would obviously result in statistical discrimination yet according to the idea of "decoding signals of behavioural patterns" it would not be a strange nor bad thing.

 

Funny idea in my world 

[gilbertrollins]

It was a rather strange point to make since my argument was that there are other factors at play behind discrimination than the actual decisions as such. 

 

Within the model that you are arguing for - I see absolutely no agent of change whatsoever.  Things will change as they change.  Either you argue for the possibility of errors in the system (the non-rational actor) or you do not see change as a possibility either. 

 

I don't understand your point in the first sentence.  Can you explain?  

 

Nothing I'm saying comes exclusively or even majorly from a rational choice argument.  In fact I've been arguing in terms of culture and history for the entire thread.  Notably, workers competing wages up and satisfying the model of downward sloping demand curves in a labor market does not necessarily rely on maximizing agents with full information.  In fact a world with relatively stupid social actors who just think, "pay goes up -- I'll work more" is all you need to support my point about the rising incomes in pecuniary and nonpecuniary terms for workers -- and their ability hence to demand further child rearing resources as income rises.

[gilbertrollins]

Not long ago it was reasonable to assume that a person of any colour except white could neither read nor write.  The result of acting upon this premise would obviously result in statistical discrimination yet according to the idea of "decoding signals of behavioural patterns" it would not be a strange nor bad thing.

 

Or having observed a statistical reality that people of color were illiterate could have motivated people, depending on their ethics, to have educated them.  Turns out it did.

Edited April 16, 2013 by econosocio

[ohgoodness]

I don't understand your point in the first sentence.  Can you explain?  

 

Nothing I'm saying comes exclusively or even majorly from a rational choice argument.  In fact I've been arguing in terms of culture and history for the entire thread.  Notably, workers competing wages up and satisfying the model of downward sloping demand curves in a labor market does not necessarily rely on maximizing agents with full information.  In fact a world with relatively stupid social actors who just think, "pay goes up -- I'll work more" is all you need to support my point about the rising incomes in pecuniary and nonpecuniary terms for workers -- and their ability hence to demand further child rearing resources as income rises.

 

I was pointing to the fact that all the possible pathways up until a made decision are heavily conditioned for both men and women thus I find most decisions related to parenthood and employment to be redundant points. Simply the decision is the result of a process. 

 

True that you have been adding layers of culture and history to the thread but I still see your inherent logic as rational choice.  Logically within the context of the female homemaker-male breadwinner world (such as our contemporary) the ability to demand further child-rearing resources as income rises would lead to an even greater gender divide as the only utility-maximizing decision existing is to maximize male employment.  Even something as small as a 5% gender wage would do that.  This is the basic and fundamental critique to the Becker's new home economics paradigm and it still stands. 

[gilbertrollins]

I'm not familiar with Becker's work on family and I'm not going to continue to defend the theoretical framework I'm operating from considering the history of being pigeon-holed on the board and attacked on economistic straw men.  I made a broadly cultural argument which included boundedly rational agents.  I'm not going to take it further than that.

Edited April 16, 2013 by econosocio

[ohgoodness]

I'm not familiar with Becker's work on family and I'm not going to continue to defend the theoretical framework I'm operating from considering the history of being pigeon-holed on the board and attacked on economistic straw men.  I made a broadly cultural argument which included boundedly rational agents.  I'm not going to take it further than that.

 

I'm terribly sorry but you made a sweeping statement about gender discrimination which I took serious offence to since I saw it as an ill-supported fire starter. 

[gilbertrollins]

I'm terribly sorry but you made a sweeping statement about gender discrimination which I took serious offence to since I saw it as an ill-supported fire starter. 

I started a productive discussion on the wage gender gap and workplace discrimination which several people added literature and opinions to, and seem to have benefitted from in turn.  I made no sweeping statements, and did not set out to offend anyone.  The closing of the wage gender gap is not ill supported.  

Edited April 16, 2013 by econosocio

[gilbertrollins]

[ohgoodness]

 

They'll be headlining a festival in Stockholm this summer... So strange... 

 

Alas I think it was the wrong word to use.  In my native country (not russia but the other socialist country) we used that literal phrase for any  rhetorical device used as bait.    Such as walking into a AA-meeting and arguing that alcoholism is simply a matter of wanting to quit and so on.    Just to clarify what I meant.   

 

This is also a really good read: 

 

http://books.google.se/books?id=j2MnzWmIbyAC&lpg=PA95&ots=mCEpCWf826&dq=gary%20becker%20and%20his%20%20blindspots&pg=PA95#v=onepage&q=gary%20becker%20and%20his%20%20blindspots&f=false

Edited April 16, 2013 by ohgoodness

[gilbertrollins]

Such as walking into a AA-meeting and arguing that alcoholism is simply a matter of wanting to quit and so on. 

 

I'm smashed beyond recognition right now.

[ohgoodness]

I'm smashed beyond recognition right now.

 

It was always a question of utility-maximizing.   Do some required reading or get really drunk and post things on grad cafe.  Ain't no explanation to taste oh no.

[gilbertrollins]

It was a joke.