Promotions and gender-specific divorce risk

We show that promotions to top jobs dramatically increase women’s probability of divorce, but do not affect men’s marriages. This effect is causally estimated for top jobs in the political sector, where close electoral results deliver exogenous variation in promotions across job candidates. Descriptive evidence from job promotions to the position of CEO shows that private sector promotions result in the same gender inequality in the risk of divorce.

The paper is by Olle Folke and Johanna Rickne, via James Feigenbaum.

Comments

Why is this inequality instead of difference.

Any difference between the sexes that can be spun as a positive for women is a big suck it to the patriarchy! Any difference which doesn't look good for women is the result of evil sexist men.

Yep. This is relevant to a recent MR post, where we were to wonder why in the world men wouldn't want to marry "ambitious" women.

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/12/acting-like-potential-wife-thus-blunting-demonstrated-ambition.html

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Seems to me that every divorce that affects a woman would also affect a man. Well, almost every divorce.

Not sure about the pessimism here. Maybe it's that women who get promoted to those awesome C-level positions are finally able to slough off their loser husbands for a better model?

Hilarious!

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

This thread again? There is nothing more to learn, teach, or say on this subject. Thanks to the web we have mostly all already been sorted into the naive, the willfully obtuse, and the sensible.

Comments for this post are closed

Well the assumption is that divorce is a bad thing. Which means that if it is happening more to women who are promoted to CEO than to men that are promoted to CEO then it is an inequality. However, I don't think the author was trying to be all that proscriptive with the paper.

Comments for this post are closed

If there is a difference between them, this is an inequality. Kind of like 19 does not equal 20 kind of logic.

Maybe they should abolish the word "inequality" and replace it with a more detailed explanation.

"The situation between one group and the other is systematically DIFFERENT and to people in the group which the number is lower, they might think that it not fair. So then what?"

Or ... maybe "inequality" is not a dirty word. Some more fighting words could also be selected as compared to the suggestion above.

Among other things, inequality generally represents underutilization of capacity due to barriers to reaching potential.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Hypergamy explains this. Female Hypergamy.

In a nutshell...

Comments for this post are closed

Women prefer Hypergamy, so this is not sexist. Inequality does not equal sexism.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

To find writers who fully embrace the renunciation of leftist errancy that is Trump, I have to click over to Takimag et al.

Here it's all trigger warnings, "gender inequality," and Trump lowering the status of "people."

OK, bye bye!

He is, if nothing else, true to his username

Heh heh. I like you guys and I still Iike Tyler. He's just pinned by the constraints of academic groupthink.

Or maybe, y'know, he just doesn't like Trump as much as you.

Comments for this post are closed

I should clarify: I voted Johnson and shared common opinions of Trump the man. But Trump the phenomenon? It should be a brilliant and fantastic libertarian moment. My own reaction to the election was one of massive anti-regulatory optimism. I'm just surprised that the tone on MR is closer to the wails and lamentations from the left, though it softening somewhat.

Comments for this post are closed

Are all Libertarians admitting that they are crony capitalists now?

Comments for this post are closed

I see no reason why Trump should be any greater boon to crony capitalism than was Obama. Obama's ACA had several parallels to Bush's Iraq--handouts to corporations perhaps among the more prominent.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

It would be interesting to see the differences where it's a power couple (roughly the same earnings), the wife earns more than the husband, and the husband earns more than the wife. Interesting but I'm not sure it would tell us much. I work with (mostly male) doctors, and when one of them calls me for a referral to a divorce lawyer, I always give the same advice: You don't need a divorce lawyer, you need a psychiatrist. Have your fling with the pretty young tech at the hospital, but be discreet and don't embarrass yourself or your family. You'll get over it eventually and come to your senses and thank me for the advice.

Being half of a low-grade power couple (i.e., two lawyers each earning between $250K and $500K), I think there's a breakpoint at about the level where one partner earns twice what the other does. When the ratio is 55/45 or 60/40, then both incomes are essential for the family to maintain its standard of living, but at about 67/33, the lower income comes to seem more like a hobby. We had that dynamic when I worked for the state, in a position that was reasonably prestigious, but only paid about a third of what my wife made. The power imbalance within the marriage was one reason I quit that job. (Also, we genuinely needed more money.)

It is entirely asymmetrical. Far greater ratios are 'common' in the opposite direction, and marriages survive.

Comments for this post are closed

"Also, we genuinely needed more money."

Why?

How could they possibly get by on only $330k - $660k per year!? That's practically like being homeless!

Haha so funny ?

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

It's two lawyers married to each other. Lawyers destroyed our banks, our labor base, our manufacturing sector, our balls, and brought us feminism with a $20 trillion national debt. Die in a tire fire simps.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

And do they?

Comments for this post are closed

They don't need a psychiatrist or a mistress. They need patience.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

I once thought with all the affirmative action, making a sex change to get that CEO job wouldn't be seen as carrierist advice. But if on top of that the price is that I would lose my wife, I'm not on board any more.

Comments for this post are closed

I once thought with all the affirmative action, making a sex change to get that CEO job wouldn't be seen as carrierist. But if on top of that the price is that I would lose my wife, I'm not on board any more.

Do transgender or post-sex-change "women" count towards gender quotas in places where they apply?

Yes, why shouldn't they? Anyway, to fill a board quota, I once advised an engineering services company to seek out a kindergarden to merge with. My proposal wasn't taken seriously though.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

A very smart fellow I was on a team with in Marketing Strategy class at UCLA MBA school in 1981 is now listed as "the highest paid female CEO" in America.

Martine Rothblatt then.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

It would be interesting to see the descriptive statistics on the identity of plaintiff and defendant in these divorces. Most marriages, the wife is the plaintiff. Does that change as you move up the social scale? Does it change only when you reach these rather rarefied circumstances?

Men are success objects, women derive status from achieving husbands (while men derive no status or suffer embarrassment from an achieving wife), and women with the moxie to land in the CEO's chair are less likely to have the sort of social skills which women customarily draw on to maintain a marriage (while husbands of high-achieving women are less likely to have the disposition and skills to take care of their spouse in ways that help someone with a demanding position thrive). So, the husband leaves or is ejected and replaced with a combination of hired help and companionship-without-status.

People commonly arrive at high positions in late middle age. Does having an older (retired) husband reduce the risk of divorce (Over and above the reduced risk people face as they age)?

Makes sense.

"Women derive status from achieving husbands". Maybe enjoying this status allows women to tolerate a busy husband or one that is substandard. However, since "men derive no status or suffer embarrassment from an achieving wife", they simply have nothing to compensate the frustration of having a busy wife or a wife with which they are not so happy. So it may be more that women like having successful husbands enough that they put up with the disadvantages, while husbands of successful women do not derive benefit from a successful wife.

Comments for this post are closed

Uhh really? There are a number of high-achieving women in my family and friends and their husbands appear to be quite proud of them.

Placation to avoid divorce, no doubt.

Comments for this post are closed

Maybe because they have genuinely happy marriages.

The comment refers to a phenomenon that may occur at the margin; that is, if a woman is not too happy with her husband, she may get divorced; but if he gets a promotion, the pleasure she gets from her increased status may offset her unhappiness and decide not to get divorced. The same does not happen for men (they do not enjoy the same increase in status for the success of their wife), so their unhappiness will not be offset by greater status arising from the success of their wife.

In the case of your family and friends, the husbands may be happy enough that they do not wish to be divorced, even without an increase in status.

Self-reported happiness shows that the happiest category is married men, followed by single women, then single men, then married women being the least happy. Men much prefer being married. Women think they do but it's the opposite in fact.

Women want the sex without the marriage, but that is difficult for them.

Comments for this post are closed

This statistic is accomplished by putting all divorced men (~40% of all men who have married) into the single man category along with the simple fact that the biggest loser group of men will be single because they are of such poor genetic stock that no woman will have them.

And an alternate explanation for single women self reporting higher levels of happiness is that they are younger. A young woman retains high levels of fertility (beauty) so her life is often a big party of free attention. Older women who remain single do not report high levels of happiness. That data point changes with age.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Typical. Women are so solipsistic that they argue for or against something from their experience. Think Pauline Kael.

As women initiate most divorces, for whatever spurious reasons, your claim that 'husbands appear to be quite proud of them' has no bearing on the argument.

Women will not stay in a relationship where they have higher status than their mates.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

+1 for It would be interesting to see the descriptive statistics on the identity of plaintiff and defendant in these divorces.

Yes, but this statistics is just a proxy, and a poor one, for what interests us: who wants the divorce? In a civilized couple, if one person wants a divorce, the other agrees, and it is convenience, or chance, who determines who gets to be the plaintiff...

In a civilized couple, if one person wants a divorce, the other agrees,

It is atypical for divorces to occur by mutual agreement; one party wants out, the other does not. It is also atypical for plaintiffs to have grounds. Unilateral divorce on demand in the rule in this country, and, no, that is not civilized.

Art, in most cases of divorce that I've seen, the couple was having severe problems before, and when one party finally asked for divorce, the other party consented (agreed is probably not the correct term, but the 'civilized' response is to bow to the inevitable.)

As for grounds, we live in a society were we believe that no-one should be trapped in a lifetime of unhappiness, regardless of the promises that they may have made or the reason for that unhappiness. While dissolution of a marriage is tragic, I think that's the more civilized of the two choices. (That groundless divorce also causes tragedy is undisputed, it's, as always, a matter of which evil you think is less.)

Comments for this post are closed

Stop getting married retards. The whole point of the marriage contract was the exchange of women as property to assure peace between tribes. Women haven't been property since they got the right to vote. In 2016, your marriage contract is worthless with regards to the female's loyalty, sexual requirements, fitness as a mother, and economic responsibilities. The only thing it guarantees is she gets half of your current and future earnings if she walks away. The contract only makes the male a slave, who will be thrown into debtor's prison if he doesn't pay. A women who really loves you doesn't need a marriage contract. She will be having so much fun you will need to beg to her stop giving blowjobs because your balls are sore.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

If a woman's efforts at work were going to affect her marriage, it would have happened well before she got to CEO.

I would have thought that but,

"We show that promotions to top jobs dramatically increase women’s probability of divorce,"

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Every married person man or woman will at some time in their marriage wish they had not married their husband/wife. They will want a divorce. If a man who is making a good living gets a divorce the courts will make sure he is reduced to poverty. If a woman is working and earning a low wage she too will likely endure some poverty as a result of the divorce. This juxtaposition of incomes means that as a woman increases her income she is more able to go for the divorce when that inevitable day comes that she realizes she married down. The opposite is true for the man. If they make minimum wage or get fired they are in a perfect position to divorce when that inevitable day arrives and they realize they are unhappy in their marriage.

So, women: If you want to stay married then don't work or work infrequently and push your husband to do great things in his job. If on the other hand you really want out of the marriage get into the job market and work your way up to a living wage and when the time is right lose all that extra weight.

I do wonder if the courts are as harsh on high earning women as they are on high earning men.

Are there any jurisdictions in the developed world that don't have standard rules for division of assets that are independent of gender?

At least in Canada it is extraordinarily rare for divorces to not use the formula in the event of a dispute (although adherence to the formula is not that common - most couples come to their own agreements). High profile cases get lots of publicity, but I don't think they're statistically noteworthy.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

I think you're reading it a little wrong.

Maybe not so much that getting an executive job causes the man to divorce the women (although this might apply sometimes at least a bit in terms of whatever that means for intrahousehold bargaining, his ego, etc.). Rather, it is that it gives the woman more freedom to make that decision - her income is secure, etc.

When women marry up it is to gain status. Men marry down because men value looks over status. When a woman reaches greater status than her man, she is no longer as attracted to her man and wants to remarry up again. When a woman loses her looks...

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

"dramatically increase women’s probability of divorce, but do not affect men’s marriages"

Sloppy wording in the latter clause, as the paper did not assess the totality of "men's marriages."

It is possible that men's behavior changes, but that it was not measured. For instance, perhaps men cheat more as they rise through the ranks, and either (1) successfully hide it or (2) their wives are more likely to overlook the straying as the man gain's stature.

Or perhaps men and women are both increasingly unfaithful as they climb the ladder, but men's infidelity tends towards the short-term sexual relationship and women's infidelity tends towards the longer-term and emotional, with the latter type leading to more divorce. Alternatively, perhaps men and women become increasingly unfaithful in the same way, but high-earning men are more deterred from divorce by our current Family Law than higher-earning women.

You are really smart and raise good points.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

The US divorce laws provide a great incentive to the lower earning spouse to divorce. The stay at home dad working on his novel or his PhD in English lit or his golf swing married to a successful woman has the same incentives as the stay at home mom to divorce -- depending on the state, half of the family wealth regardless of who created it, financial support to maintain his standard of living for a period of time or depending on the facts perhaps forever. Then add the children to the equation because they are worth big bucks to dad. If the lawyers get involved there is a good chance that the higher earner will pay it all regardless of fault. It is the best interests of the child you know. I am dubious that these incentives would affect men differently from woman -- why should they? But I don't understand big words and phrases like "exogenous" and "causally estimated," and the phrase "gender inequality" strikes me as either as bs or a writer with an ax to grind -- so I am not going to bother reading the article.

"so I am not going to bother reading the article"

Classic

Comments for this post are closed

It said "gender inequality" so you refuse to read it?

You must have some really importance perspective to share on issues of gender inequality then.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

I grinned. I assume that a paper related to sex, even if tangentially, that is purportedly written by "Olle Folke" is a leg-pull.

Comments for this post are closed

Solution: the federal government should make it illegal to divorce a promoted woman.

Comments for this post are closed

Camaur Crampton Family Law: services for divorce , child custody. Strategic representation by a top notch lawyer with the utmost skill & decades of

Comments for this post are closed

On account of the fact that divorce lawyers punish the high earner as severely in the financial aspect as if they had committed a heinous crime, simple male greed may be part of the answer to this dilemma.

I do wonder why these laws prevail in democracies, and also why those involved in the "industry" don't have to have permanent armed guards surrounding them for their personal safety. There are usually howls of protest from the general public over high profile cases with large transfers of wealth that get press coverage. I suspect that part of the answer is that people are a lot more docile than the impression given by press coverage of violent crime.

I saw it written somewhere that divorce lawyers try to put people in the same position as though the marriage hadn't broken down (clearly impossible) whereas what most people consider justice would be better served if the couple were put in the same position as it the marriage hadn't taken place. The latter would be easy if people's health didn't deteriorate with age and lifespans were indefinite (not necessarily infinite).

Comments for this post are closed

Women definitely deal with discrimination both at work and at home. Man usually don't like a working woman, and employers don't appreciate them enough. If you're looking for a job where you'll be respected and treated eaqually, here's http://smartresumesolutions.com/ something to help you.

As to "men usually don't like a working woman", with housing costing what it does, there must be a awful lot of frustrated men around.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed