Gender pay gap observation

…according to a new analysis of 2,000 communities by a market research company, in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% higher than those of the guys in their peer group. In two cities, Atlanta and Memphis, those women are making about 20% more. This squares with earlier research from Queens College, New York, that had suggested that this was happening in major metropolises. But the new study suggests that the gap is bigger than previously thought, with young women in New York City, Los Angeles and San Diego making 17%, 12% and 15% more than their male peers, respectively. And it also holds true even in reasonably small areas like the Raleigh-Durham region and Charlotte in North Carolina (both 14% more), and Jacksonville, Fla. (6%).

The figures come from James Chung of Reach Advisors, who has spent more than a year analyzing data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. He attributes the earnings reversal overwhelmingly to one factor: education. For every two guys who graduate from college or get a higher degree, three women do. This is almost the exact opposite of the graduation ratio that existed when the baby boomers entered college. Studies have consistently shown that a college degree pays off in much higher wages over a lifetime, and even in many cases for entry-level positions. “These women haven’t just caught up with the guys,” says Chung. “In many cities, they’re clocking them.”

Chung also claims that, as far as women’s pay is concerned, not all cities are created equal. Having pulled data on 2,000 communities and cross-referenced the demographic information with the wage-gap figures, he found that the cities where women earned more than men had at least one of three characteristics. Some, like New York City or Los Angeles, had primary local industries that were knowledge-based. Others were manufacturing towns whose industries had shrunk, especially smaller ones like Erie, Pa., or Terre Haute, Ind. Still others, like Miami or Monroe, La., had a majority minority population. (Hispanic and black women are twice as likely to graduate from college as their male peers.)

That is not the final word, but here is more from Time magazine.

Comments

> He attributes the earnings reversal overwhelmingly to one factor: education. For every two guys who graduate from college or get a higher degree, three women do.

Let's start with three relatively well-founded assumptions. One is the Caplanian signaling model of education. Two is the fact that men and women have near identical IQ distributions. Three is that employers are rational and profit-maximizing. Taken together with the finding from the paper, this produces a paradox.

Why wouldn't employers bid up the wages of men relative to women for the same level of education? Employers care about a college degree because it signals intelligence and some degree of stability. Yet a smaller proportion of men now graduate college compared to women. Therefore we'd expect that a college degree for a man to predict higher intelligence than the same degree for a woman. Prospective employers should take that into account and adjust accordingly. We'd expect that, in long-run equilibrium, differential college graduation rates in visibly different groups should not result in different income levels.

Two is the fact that men and women have near identical IQ distributions.

They don't, actually. Women cluster in the middle. Men make up more of each end of the distribution. However the tests are constructed in such a way that the average across the sexes are about equal - that is, they balance arithmetic questions with comprehension ones.

Why wouldn’t employers bid up the wages of men relative to women for the same level of education? Employers care about a college degree because it signals intelligence and some degree of stability. Yet a smaller proportion of men now graduate college compared to women. Therefore we’d expect that a college degree for a man to predict higher intelligence than the same degree for a woman.

Why would you predict that? It may well be that smart men are so smart they are too smart for college. They are smart enough to recognize a toxic system that hates them. How smart was Steve Jobs or Bill Gates?

We’d expect that, in long-run equilibrium, differential college graduation rates in visibly different groups should not result in different income levels.

Certainly not what we see in the African American community. Because maybe intelligence is not all that important?

What does IQ distribution have to do with the income of an individual of either sex?

...why did researcher Chung state that his findings here.... " held true only for women who were childless and single" ?
And what's definition of "young women" in this research ?

In whimsical "research" like this... one can introduce/ignore whatever variables one feels like

I didn't go into the study, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but from what I understand:

The gender pay gap tends to start to increase during the ages where women typically have children. This occurs because they have to take time off work and may behind in terms of acruing human capital relative to their male peers.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"Why would you predict that? It may well be that smart men are so smart they are too smart for college. They are smart enough to recognize a toxic system that hates them. How smart was Steve Jobs or Bill Gates?"

It must be that. That's why all those missing college guys are tech titans instead of being playing Supermario and complaining about women, Blacks, etc. Oh, wait...

Yeah. That's why all the cool dudes who have grown out of Super-Mario troll obscure Economics blogs pretending to be Brazilian.

Come on. Even you can do better than this.

"That’s why all the cool dudes who have grown out of Super-Mario troll obscure Economics blogs pretending to be Brazilian."

1) I am Brazilian. I am sorry not everyone can be as lucky as I am. Being Brazilian means winning first prize in the lottery of life.

2) Unlike Americans, Brazilians do not troll. We have lives and we can respect differences. We are tolerant. Brazil will become a Black/Protestant-majority country in the next few years and you probably heard less about that unprecedent, peaceful demographic shift than about some stupid statues. As the Proclamarion of Republic Anthem says, "If it is to be that from brave chests/Our banner will be bloodied/The living blood of the hero Tiradentes//Baptized this bold flag!/Messenger of peace, it is peace for which we yearn,/From love comes our force and power/But in war, in the greatest ordeals/You shall see us struggling and victorious!"

3) It is not an obscure Economics blog. Quite the opposite! It is popular and well-regarded by scholars and laymen alike. It has successfully presented economic principles and libertarian thought to a new generation. It is much less obscure than you will ever be. https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/marginalrevolution.com

4) Is there anything bad women can't do to society? They are like the Jews, who keep poisoning my well and cursing my harvests. The guys (and the goyim) know what I mean.

Respond

Add Comment

The Venn diagram overlap of Super Mario guys who don't leave their basements and trolls on geeky economy blogs may be bigger than expected, but I expect it's still not very big.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"Two is the fact that men and women have near identical IQ distributions."

-1, that's incorrect

Graph:

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e3a75fc210c089f8562259e7a91cc646-c

I take it the guys playing Supermario in their mom's basements (and posting on economics blogs while possibly pretending to be Brazillian) are on the right hand side of the male distribution, right?

Respond

Add Comment

Thiago is both intelligent and crazy. But I didn't include a distribution on crazy.

Respond

Add Comment

Interesting chart. If one assumes one needs a minimum IQ of say 115 to be competent/successful in many of the traditional professions - doctor, lawyer, architect, college professor, CPA, etc., it has interesting implications for the male/female ratio we should expect to see in those jobs, just given the disparate depth of the potential staffing pool. For higher end professional slots, minimum IQ might be more like 130 or 140, with even more disparate ratios. Seems like Summers had something to say on that topic when he was at Harvard.

I would presume there is research on this?

Respond

Add Comment

1) I would rather not boast about Brazilian intelligence. Such a behaviour towards the less fortunate in cognitive terms would be unbecoming of a gentleman, which I pride myself on being. Suffices to say that Brazilian intelligence is exactly what one would have expected from the country that invented the typewriter, the Walkman, the airplane, radiocommunication, a better kind of payphone, the ID caller and discovered the pion. There is good reason to believe the average Brazilian male brain is 25% heavier than the typical American Caucasian brain.

2) I am not crazy. I am very stable. I am a pillar of my community and well-regarded by my neighbors.

3) I have never played Supermario. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child and I was more of an Atari person. When I became a man, I put aside childish things, including videogames. As famous Brazilian Admiral Barroso said, before sinking Paraguay's fleet, "the Empire of Brazil expects every Brazilian to fulfill his duty to the end". https://www.google.com.br/search?q=almirante+barroso&num=40&client=tablet-android-samsung&prmd=mniv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7k5qwxZ7aAhUDgpAKHWZ1DuoQ_AUIEygD&biw=800&bih=1280#imgrc=enbOB56eV9J8PM:

4) Actually, schizophrenia, ADHD and autism are mental illnesses more frequently diagnosed in men than in women.

Respond

Add Comment

I did indicate a plural.

So many guys posting on the internet complaining about women. And they are all on the upper end of the curve, hence, smarter than most women. Am I right?

Respond

Add Comment

"So many guys posting on the internet complaining about women. "

Sure lots of guys doing that. Indeed lots of guys complaining about everything. But I get your point.

" And they are all on the upper end of the curve, hence, smarter than most women. Am I right?"

Yep, just like you are on the upper end of the curve, hence, smarter than most men.

Respond

Add Comment

"Yep, just like you are on the upper end of the curve, hence, smarter than most men."
But is she smarter than the average bear?

Respond

Add Comment

So risk aversion implies that women's wages should be higher on average.

Respond

Add Comment

"So risk aversion implies that women’s wages should be higher on average."

That doesn't strike me as a logical conclusion, but it's not highly improbable. Risk aversion implies that women are better suited for corporate work in general and in industries or professions that prioritize low risk. So, I would expect women to gravitate to professions with high security and low risk and men to gravitate to jobs with high risk for high reward. I think that's what we see playing out in the article linked above.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Remember that companies don't care about intelligence. They care about ze monies. Intelligence is just a means to an end.
College, I'd argue, is by now more of a measure of conformity than of intelligence. But conformity is also very useful for a company.
And don't forget that companies can claim diversity points by employing & paying women well. Which can also lead to more money through better PR.

Lastly, companies aren't perfectly rational, and we are very far from any long-run equilibrium.

But in what concrete way do diversity points translate to ze monies?

They protect you from the state seizing your monies, like the ongoing investigation vs Google.

Respond

Add Comment

As said, companies (at least hope to) earn more money through PR that way. At least I know a few people who buy products from certain companies explicitly because they market themselves as women-friendly, minority-friendly, etc.

"Marketing yourself" as being friendly to a certain demographic doesn't actually require employing or favorably compensating members of that group.

Like Anonymous said, the main way "diversity points" contribute to revenue is that not having enough of them risks asset seizure through various means.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Jan April 3, 2018 at 5:14 am

But in what concrete way do diversity points translate to ze monies?

Jesse Jackson's latest corporate deal, which has Toyota Motor Sales USA agreeing to spend nearly $8 billion over 10 years to increase minority participation in the company, is being attacked by conservative groups who say Jackson continues a "shameless" pattern of "shaking down" corporate America for "private gain."

In announcing the agreement with Jackson's Rainbow/Push Coalition, Toyota called it a "comprehensive rededication to diversity and inclusion."

The company agreed to spend $7.8 billion over the next decade, or roughly a third more than what it currently spends, on a variety of programs to increase the hiring and training of minorities as well as the amount of business conducted with minority-owned equipment suppliers and advertisers.

In its press release, Toyota did not mention that Jackson had threatened an economic boycott of the company. Instead, Toyota referred to "a series of meetings" the company had had with Jackson, in which he "provided Toyota with an opportunity for a comprehensive review of its existing diversity programs."

Not a trivial amount of money. See also GM.

"Nice business you have here Toyota, its would be a shame is something happened to it."

Its effectively a semi-formal political spoils tax, pretty much like paying off the mob, or hiring "consultants" in certain 3rd world countries. I wonder how explicit the internal analysis is comparing the cost of the the payoffs vs. hiring "enough" zero or negative contribution employees with associated diversity points.

Unfortunately, it paints every minority hire or contract, no matter how well deserved, as undeserved.

Respond

Add Comment

But the steel tariff is going to add $100 to the purchase of a new car?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"But in what concrete way do diversity points translate to ze monies?"

The US Federal government requires Federal contractors (which is a huge list of companies) to have and abide by an Affirmative Action Plan.

Which they adhere to by hiring black women, so they can check two boxes without having to hire unnecessary numbers of woman and or minorities.

Respond

Add Comment

I'm not positive, but I don't think that's correct:

"Title 41 of the Code of Federal regulations 60-4. "
"Maintaining a current file of names, addresses and telephone numbers of each minority and female off-the-street applicant or referral from a union, a recruitment source or community organization, as well as a record of what action was taken in regard to each individual."

And employer has to submit detailed data for the EEOC survey.

https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/eeo1survey/faq.cfm

It's also noteworthy that all firms with more than 100 employees have to submit EEOC data, even if they aren't Federal Contractors.

Also, it's mandatory.
"A: Without clicking the "certify report" button, the EEO-1 Joint Reporting Committee (JRC) will not receive your report. You will receive a notification of violation and considered not in compliance."

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

@Doug: The Caplan model of education is pure "do as I say not as I do".

In the real world, colleges graduates are highly coveted because they are productive. Obviously, hiring is constrained by offer-demand. It's possible that at the same time there is excess offer for some majors while graduate for other majors are scarce. This market imbalance does not means college is useless, it just means kids are idealistic. Until I see a 50% of white collar jobs done by non-college graduates........the ones doing the stronger signaling are Caplan and a few sassy CEOs.

I can't wait to see an oil company getting rid of expensive senior geologists and substituting them with cheaper kids that learnt Python with online courses. Software companies know to do and sell software quite successfully. This success shouldn't blind them to think they can do everything.

Maybe because I am a geologist I think that is a bad example. Though I can easily see that a large firm with the right training program might be able to never hire above the bachelor level. Mining firms usually hire BS or even BA geologist trainees while their metallurgists and geochemists have doctorates.

Geology requires a fair bit of hands on learning. Structural geology, stratigraphy, petrology, and the paleontology related fields require a lot of lab hours and some field experience, using equipment and materials that are extremely expensive and/or requiring visits to remote locations. Another way to look at this is the paucity of self taught large animal veterinarians since horses and cows are expensive and mutilated ones are difficult to dispose of.

In addition while geophysics and geochemistry can be learned from a book, they require a lot of general geology knowledge in order to not make stupid and very expensive mistakes. This can be shown by both the tendency of firms to hire generalists and order them to read a book and hiring and management choices in which lower credentialed geologists are often put in charge of experienced geochemists and geophysicists without general geology training. That this is often obscured by calling these geologists “executive track” does not mean they weren’t hired for their geological training.

This is because good geologists are a lot more effective than mediocre ones because the monetary cost of data acquisition is extremely high. Geology training in both academia and industry is very focused on learning to intuit the lowest cost way to figure out what is needed.

Excellent comment.

One of my observations with teams developing technical software was that engineers can learn to write (most) software on the job, but it’s much less likely for software guys to learn on the job to be engineers. The managers were almost always engineers.

Also, software college classes seem to teach a lot of the wrong lessons. I have to un-train a lot of Engineers we hire that have Computer Science Engineering degrees. There's far too much of a focus on pedantry and not nearly enough focus on good code. Good code should not be comment free nor should it be filled up with absolutely useless comments.

Good code should not be minimalistic. Sure that may be a clever way of doing it, but it's going to take a plant engineer 10 minutes to figure out what you were trying to do. Just use 2 extra lines and make it obvious what you are doing. Granted, this can often be a failing of self taught coders who are trying to show off their cleverness.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Are college graduates productive? Far too much college students are professional Social Justice Warriors. What do they bring to any business? Half of Silicon Valley is throwing their business model away and circling the drain because they have let the SJWs take over. Publishing is not far behind. Nor is the mainstream media.

What you fail to mention is that companies are constrained in their hiring. They cannot use IQ tests or the like. Disparate Impact - and yes Jan will come on in a second to claim that IQ tests are not banned. But like DDT they are. So they have to use college as a proxy. But is it useful as a proxy? In some ways less and less so. In other ways it is worse than random hiring I think.

So yes, if companies want people with skills, you know, people with STEM degrees, then they will have to look for college graduates. But if they want to staff a HR department, they would be better off looking for people back from a year working as a missionary in Thailand for the Church of Later Day Saints. Or pulling a name at random.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"Employers care about a college degree because it signals intelligence and some degree of stability"

You are forgetting the "some degree of stability" - if, with similar average IQ levels, men have less college rates, this could be a symptom of lower "degree of stability" (too lazy or too impulsive to go to college)

re: too lazy or too impulsive to go to college

These disparate results are clearly the result of a hostile learning environment for men, reflecting systematic gender discrimination toward this group. I'm expecting the self-criticism sessions to start in universities around the country any time now.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

It's those other things that a college degree signals were women greatly outperform men. Like not conformity, persistence willingness to work long and hard on a boring task etc.

Respond

Add Comment

"Why wouldn’t employers bid up the wages of men relative to women for the same level of education?"

There is a strong social, political, and legal pressure to discriminate in favor of women. This institutional discrimination should account for some portion of income inequality.

"Therefore we’d expect that a college degree for a man to predict higher intelligence than the same degree for a woman."

Wouldn't this suggest that men with college degrees would earn more than women with college degrees but that the distribution of degrees being unequal, the median income still tends toward women?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Why do I keep seeing this article all over the place again lately? It's from September 2010!

Wow - talk about skipping over the most relevant point in a 'Gender pay gap update'

And to think I just read the text, having trusted Prof. Cowen to at least actually pay attention to what he is posting an update.

Respond

Add Comment

Haha... Cowen got had. "That is not the final word." Indeed Prof. Cowen, much has been written about the gender wage gap in the past 8 years.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

'than those of the guys in their peer group'

And from the Time article, here is how that definition works out - 'applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities. The rest of working women — even those of the same age, but who are married or don't live in a major metropolitan area — are still on the less scenic side of the wage divide.' And the selection is not precisely random in terms of how the age of peers is relevant - 'Rather, highly educated women tend to marry and have children later. Thus the women who earn the most in their 20s are usually single and childless.' It is cherry blossom time in DC, making it much easier to pluck the facts one wishes to highlight, apparently.

And teasing out the reverse sexism in this shift over a half century could be tricky - 'For every two guys who graduate from college or get a higher degree, three women do. This is almost the exact opposite of the graduation ratio that existed when the baby boomers entered college.'

The multiple 'mays' in this passage is also noteworthy - 'While the economic advantage of women sometimes evaporates as they age and have families, Chung believes that women now may have enough leverage that their financial gains may not be completely erased as they get older.' Because that has not been the case till now, obviously. But maybe, some day, if everything works out, women will be paid equally as a group, and not merely as a selected subset of women for a fraction of their lifetimes.

"And from the Time article, here is how that definition works out – ‘applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities. The rest of working women — even those of the same age, but who are married or don’t live in a major metropolitan area — are still on the less scenic side of the wage divide."

Right. And what should we conclude from that? Which seems more likely:

A) Employers discriminate in favor of women when they are young, single, new grads but then mysteriously switch to discriminating against them when they marry and start families.

- OR -

B) When women marry and start families they are more likely to favor work/life balance over maximizing earnings. That they are less willing to travel or relocate and are more likely to seek part time work or leave the labor force entirely for extended periods (or both).

Of course, you and I both know that A makes no sense and the right answer is B.

Or C, people will create whatever narrative fits what they believe, and in the finest tradition of cherry blossom season., pick out only those petals that fit the pre-defined criteria.

Because oddly enough, not all all women marry or have children. Even if that is likely the default assumption of an employer hiring a 24 year old female college graduate, one assumes.

"Because oddly enough, not all all women marry or have children."

And some do marry and have children but pursue careers intensively. And I believe the data on such women is that they show lower pay than male counterparts.
But a large fraction do chose to pursue their careers less intensely (including, for example, female MDs who are far more likely to work part-time and focus on lower-pressure specialties where they won't be on call).

"Even if that is likely the default assumption of an employer hiring a 24 year old female college graduate, one assumes."

I don't know what the default assumptions of employers are regarding young female college grads. But judging by the income data, it certainly does not seem that those employers are shying away from hiring them or are paying them less on (on the basis of hypothetical assumptions or any other basis).

Correction: And I believe the data on such women is that they DON'T show lower pay than male counterparts.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

according to a new analysis of 2,000 communities by a market research company, in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% higher than those of the guys in their peer group.

In the past a great deal of pressure was put on men to work themselves into an early grave to support their wives and families. That is no longer operational given Official Feminism objects to it and has changed laws to make it too high risk. Hollywood and the government have also worked to undermine fathers in the home - you only have to reflect that Homer Simpson is almost the most positive father on TV these days. So the arrangement is breaking down. Young men are doing what young women traditionally have done. They are not taking their careers seriously. They are doing things they like and want to do. They are slacking.

You could present this as a good thing. Which it is. You could present it as a civilizational disaster. Which it is. But more importantly it is likely to work out poorly for women in the end. Just as African American women what it is like to live in a community where they cannot marry up.

Man drops out of college to stay home, play videos games and not make money. Blames Official Feminism. Tells the ladies that they'll pay for this.

Sounds like pretty much every rap artist to a t. Actually it really does sound like Eazy-E. Why the racist hatred bro?

Respond

Add Comment

There are low individual motives and there are explanations about the changing conditionswherein people make decisions. Don’t just reflexively Pooh Pooh. You think no-fault divorce has no unintended consequences?

It's not like there isn't data on the subject, either. Declining marriage rates, lower male labor force participation rates, etc.

Respond

Add Comment

Everything has consequences, but there is only a groups who can make up excuses to play videogames.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"But more importantly it is likely to work out poorly for women in the end. Just as African American women what it is like to live in a community where they cannot marry up."

Yep, the big economic problem for women is that they can't marry up. So that is why male Blacks are poor(er): the charming princess hasn't found them yet. I blame systemic discrimination.

You know, it is impressive not only how you managed to be wrong in every single thing you said, but also in how my point went right over your head. Marrying is not an economic problem. Black women are doing fine economically. Cause and effect is hard isn't it?

And of course you are not even playing the game properly. *I* blame a lack of fathers and perhaps fecklessness. *You* blame systemic discrimination. That's how it works.

"And of course you are not even playing the game properly. *I* blame a lack of fathers and perhaps fecklessness."

I am pretty sure kids can learn to play videogames by themselves. I mean, if Obama diesn't take their videogames or something.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Jordan Peterson is still a sexist for saying the gap doesn't exist, even if it doesn't exist. It's not science's job to make judgments on data, only to collect data and let people make their own biased and inaccurate claims.

You didn't bother to read the article, it appears.

But then, that probably helps in making biased and inaccurate claims.

He's right tho.

Well, apart from the fact that the pay gap exists, according to the article.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"Still others, like Miami or Monroe, La., had a majority minority population. (Hispanic and black women are twice as likely to graduate from college as their male peers.)"

Men may be more intelligent (longer tails in intelligence distribution), but women are less conflictive. Business don't need Einsteins, they need reliable people. There's a lot of talk about how women use soft social skills in business when the issue may be stupid young men being hindered by DUIs, drug-dealing, violence, etc.

Yes, there's a tendency to blame this on a pro-Female PC pattern of behavior, but fundamentally it's probably a natural male tendency. Traditional societies went to a tremendous amount of effort to direct young male energies in a productive manner. As those values have faded away, young males have far more freedom. In general, they seem to prefer video games, drinking, drugs and late night parties to working. Or at least they have less of a preference than their female cohorts exhibit.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Education is, as I use to say, the great equalizer. That is the reason Representative Bolsonaro intends to overhaul Brazil's education system and adopt the best practices in the field.

"Brazil above everything. God above everyone." Brazil for Brazilians.

Respond

Add Comment

While this is interesting, I think it would be prudent to include in your blurb a definition of 'young women', so as not to mistakenly suggest that 'women earn more than men' in the cities listed. As well, your blurb neglects to include this paragraph:

"As for the somewhat depressing caveat that the findings held true only for women who were childless and single: it's not their marital status that puts the squeeze on their income. Rather, highly educated women tend to marry and have children later. Thus the women who earn the most in their 20s are usually single and childless."

Its amazing to see the positive impact of education on the potential earnings for men and women alike. That said, Its important not to leave out the penalty of bearing children that women face in terms of their longterm earnings. Here is a recently published research on this: (https://www.henrikkleven.com/uploads/3/7/3/1/37310663/kleven-landais-sogaard_nber-w24219_jan2018.pdf)

Penalty? Women have the choice, and exercise it. When women have children they often want to shift to either stay at home mom status or find a job that is flexible/part time. Good for them. That's what my wife did. It just means I had to work harder to make up for it.

The problem is that women want to be immune from the consequences of their choices.

Respond

Add Comment

Yes. This study is meaningless because it is about single young well educated people.

If you include the costs of who looks after your children in lifetime income, the numbers look dramatically different.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

@Jessica You may consider it a penalty, but you don't speak for others. My own wife for example considered childbearing a net benefit.

"... in terms of their longterm earnings." But I am told some Americans are too cool to learn to read.

OK. Let me try again.
@Jessica You may consider it a penalty in terms of longterm earnings, but you don’t speak for others. My own wife for example considered childbearing a net benefit.

For her earnings?

OK I'll spell it out - childbearing does not bring with it a 'penalty' but a trade-off. Many (most?) women compare the income impact with the life satisfaction impact, and decide that child rearing is a net benefit. Maybe some regret their choice and indeed decide the net impact is a penalty.

But to describe child rearing as a penalty is not the most true statement we can make; more true would be to describe the decision as a trade off.

Respond

Add Comment

"But to describe child rearing as a penalty is not the most true statement we can make; more true would be to describe the decision as a trade off."
Which is a penalty in terms of...

If being a member of a specific Church hurts your earning prospects, it is a penalty in terms of earnings. It can also be emotionally rewarding and much better than roasting in Hell, but, you know, it is, too, a penalty in terms of earnings. If it is a voluntary decision, then, it is, too, a trade-off. Are you really surprised that economists are talking about, you know, money, earnings, carreer prospects?

But don't worry: in a few days, we will see another thoughtful research about happiness. And then another one with opposite conclusions. And so and so forth.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

We understood you, Gary. When prior tries to change the subject, it's usually a signal that you made a good point.

If only Gary had understood Jessica first, though. Here is her observation - 'That said, Its important not to leave out the penalty of bearing children that women face in terms of their longterm earnings.'

It only took Gary three times to basically reach the point where he understood that it is indeed a penalty that women face in terms of their long term earnings. And then to reasonably point out that such a penalty on female long term earning can also be seen as a trade off, as income is not the only measure of a well lived life.

The third time was the charm - both it is a penalty on long term earnings, and that many people (not only women) find such a trade off completely acceptable. It is not either/or, as Gary seem to thoroughly not be able to articulate in his first response - 'You may consider it a penalty in terms of longterm earnings, but you don’t speak for others.' It is a penalty for long term earnings as can be seen in data, and it has nothing to do with speaking for others.

Respond

Add Comment

@clockwork prior. I recently received a $50k pay raise. I don't feel penalised despite the incremental tax bill. I feel the trade off worked for me.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

The percentage of women aged 25-29 with at least a college education surpassed the percentage of men aged 25-29 with at least a college education in around 1991 and the difference has continued to climb, and the advantage of women applies across race and Hispanic origin. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p20-578.pdf See Figures 7 and 8. As reflected in Figure 8, however, the advantage of women has been falling in the past 5-6 years. If that's a trend, we likely will see a convergence in gender pay in the years ahead.

Respond

Add Comment

They have told us now for two decades disperate impact and all different in performance/pay/whatever is per se discrimination. And yet this article shows disperate impact, makes a mockery of it and uses violent rhetoric to refer to one gender "clocking" the other. When can i file my lawsuit?

Respond

Add Comment

For every two guys who graduate from college or get a higher degree, three women do.
“These women haven’t just caught up with the guys,” says Chung.
--------------------------

Anyone remember in the past when "the guys" were refered to as men?

I am so old, I can remember when the proper spelling was considered 'referred.'

Wow! You *are* old!

Absolutely - though all the Mozilla documentation continues to point out that 'referer' is a misspelling.

And clearly, these people are even older than me when it comes to spelling - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refer

I am so old that I can remember when proper grammar favored using the subordinating conjunction form "older than I am" and avoided using the more colloquial prepositional form "older than me."

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Back then, some men were called "boys". I hope they are not ones women are catching up with in terms of earnings.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Tyler should retract this post. He gives the epithet "update" to an article from 2010. The article also does not contain a link to the original research, and googling "James Chung of Reach Advisors gender pay gap" only pulls up links to magazines, newspapers, and blogs (at least on the first page of results). Be wary of articles that don't readily provide the foundational research to the main claim. This is not to say it's untrue, but I cannot verify the analysis ever took place.

Tyler, if there is an actual update, please post (or just get an RA to run the analysis on the latest data and get your update that way).

I guess this is what happens when Tyler is roaming the internet at 2:30 in the morning.

Ah well, it did give denizens a chance to unload their hurts and insecurities.

Only because women make them do that.

Respond

Add Comment

You know, to object to a group expressing their feelings about demonstrated inequality shows you to be a, petty, bitter, and hateful person. Why has racism and sexism become the Democrat call?

Respond

Add Comment

Whether or not people have "hurts and insecurities" (personally, I don't think there is that much of a gender pay gap), promoting an 8-year-old finding as if it's new and not having any paper or write-up to support the claims is not the quality of post that I usually see on MR.

"... is not the quality of post that I usually see on MR."

Lots of disgruntled commenters strongly disagree.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Good luck with marriage ladies. Most are incapable of marrying down, leaving lots of high earning, low life satisfaction women with very low fertility rates. But only the things we can definitively measure are important, and so who cares.

I think it will be a shame if women are tricked into wanting the same rat race as men. At least men have testosterone to blame. Who really wants to get up at 6:00am every morning to spend 12 or more hours tweaking power-points and kissing butt? Vs having breakfast with your kids, then doing some shopping with your friends, and then having a tasty home cooked dinner for them when the get home.

Of course I did exactly the opposite of this, but now what I think people should do is worry much much less about careers and earning money and instead try to find ways to live at a low cost of living while doing interesting and exciting things, especially when you are young and still have your health. The magic of the free market is such that, if you avoid major cities, you can have a great life today at a very low cost. And have lots of children - it turns out even if you send them to a regular school and make them find ways to pay for the own college, they do OK.

Sensible comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"Most are incapable of marrying down, leaving lots of high earning, low life satisfaction women with very low fertility rates."

Well, we can measure fertility rates even if the people who usually care about those things have more roes than teeth.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Ok, here is some fresh data which might relate more to the bitterness evident on this page:

"America these days is not a happy place. Even though the economy is up, polarization is at an all-time high, and a feeling of malaise, or worse, grips the nation.

Our happiness, or what researchers refer to as “subjective well-being,” is down across the nation, according to a detailed study by the Gallup Organization and the healthcare information service Sharecare. "

https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/03/the-unhappy-states-of-america/555800/

You know my answer of course. Americans f'd up in 2016, and increasingly they know it, even if they won't say it out loud, even if they want to blame women and minorities instead.

Most people couldn't even tell you who the vice president is. Or what party controls Congress. Or who is on the supreme Court. Nor would such knowledge even vaguely assist them in going to work or caring for their families.

It's sick individuals like you that instead of tending to their own life gardens obesses about political affairs that both meaningless and beyond your control entirely. Stop externalizing your mental issues.

Buddy, that was the answer you were supposed to give when the nation as a whole was flying, hitting at least recent highs on subjective well-weing.

And as it happens I am pretty happy, but look around this page.

1) subjective "well being" self reporting surveys at a nationwide scale are worse than wrong or not wrong. The happiness literature is a diaster and this is several tiers below that. They meaningless.

2) the data in the survey above in no way actually tells us anything about cause and effect. Your childlike correlation equals casuation argument is using data to justify ad hoc reasoning. It's a fun little narrative just so story you enjoy telling yourself.

When you wrote that did it occur to you that I might find "blame the data" very funny?

Thanks for that.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Good god, you are the "Good luck with marriage ladies" guy?

Respond

Add Comment

+1. He never passes up an opportunity to go off on an absurd tangent so that he can express his TDS.

Well, I'm not like this guy:

"We are not in a trade war with China, that war was lost many years ago by the foolish, or incompetent, people who represented the U.S. Now we have a Trade Deficit of $500 Billion a year, with Intellectual Property Theft of another $300 Billion. We cannot let this continue!"

Crazy talk, right? Not the kind of thing you want as the headline communication of the American government, right?

And you poor dudes worry about a few obscure comments in the back pages of the internet.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I am not sure whether we did or no, strains the imagination thinking it matters that much who is President, Trump or Oprah or Paul Ryan; but as to the bitterness, I don't think either party has a monopoly on it. Surfing the internet yesterday, I fetched up at a NY Times opinion piece by and for "Rosanne" refuseniks who are making a pretty big sacrifice because they very much enjoy "Rosanne." They seemed a little unhinged? I suppose they may be akin to the folks who didn't feel safe leaving their houses after the election, so perhaps you may say it's not bitterness they're manifesting, but genuine fear of what will happen - to their souls, to the world - if they watch a 22-minute sitcom.

While I enjoyed putting my spin on it, more seriously it is a chicken - egg thing.

We have a pretty broken politics at a time when we can't get a serious grip on our problems. Which came first?

"We have a pretty broken politics at a time when we can't get a serious grip on our problems."

We have a pretty broken politics at a time when we can't get a serious grip [on what our problems even are].

So the brokenness of our politics, at a moment of collective idiocy, is immaterial, or even a feature. Only a brief reprieve, however, no reason to get my hopes up - or yours down.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

The key datum:

"Despite some gains in specific categories, the overall results show a nation where well-being is in sharp decline. From 2016 to 2017, America saw its largest year-over-year drop in well-being in the 10 years that Gallup has tracked these data. "

The useless datum

A useless Gallup poll of "well being." According to Gallup, Democrats are unhappy since Trump was elected. We are getting fatter, exercise less and have more health problems. Blacks are more optimistic about the future than whites. In summary, a lot of crap that doesn't mean much and is far from rigorous analysis.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

LOL

"might relate more to the bitterness evident on this page:"

"You know my answer of course. Americans f’d up in 2016, and increasingly they know it, even if they won’t say it out loud, even if they want to blame women and minorities instead."

Yeah, there's definitely some bitterness.

No, it is the breezy confidence of being right in 2016. Well, that and two big cups of French roast.

Maybe you should switch sides, to the happy and less conflicted one.

Not that I know who JWatts voted for, but I'd bet he's already there.

Well, for the record, I held my nose and voted for Gary Johnson, because he wasn't one of two worst candidates of my life time.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

To be serious again for a moment, the lesson here should be that policy needs wonks, and this experiment in irrational policy has failed.

Consider poor Tyler and every other serious economist in the country. They are going through a drought. No one asks them or really cares about their analysis or solutions. We are flying wonkless.

We need to get back to a place where expertise matters

It's absolutely amazing how you attempt to turn every thread into a discussion of politics. You are obsessed.

Again, seriously. Discussions of the political economy are just that. It's right there in the definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_economy

The point wasn't that you couldn't contrive some kind of remote connection between a gender pay gap article from 2010 and the election of Trump in 2016. The point is that only a hyper-partisan would try. And the fact that you do it repeatedly indicates a fundamentally unhealthy obsession.

Respond

Add Comment

Well, I hope you are all retired like me, and nobody is wasting company time.

Respond

Add Comment

Nope, I'm working. But when I'm in the office, I'm almost always multi-tasking. No one is bothered by me keeping a chat / blog window open on my third monitor. It's not a secret. The company rule is, as long as your tasks get completed on time and the quality is good then it's acceptable.

Respond

Add Comment

See, I must not be bitter, because you guys can always make me laugh!

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"We need to get back to a place where expertise matters"

Isn't that what 2016 was about? You side is the one throwing hissy fits about it.

Interesting answer. You are saying only one side wanted expertise? How is that working out for you?

Hillary's not in office. We have a functional foreign policy, economy is out of the doldrums, rolling back onerous and useless regulation, affirming individual rights over governmental. Pretty well, thank you.

Trump is pretty erratic, but he does seem to get good things done.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I bet most men AND WOMEN are not really happy about that. Really.

As far as Atlanta and Memphis go, it seems that black women are more educated and make considerably more that black men.

Respond

Add Comment

What does this have to do with the gender pay gap? Nothing that I can see. Tyler's compulsive contrarianism strikes again.

OK, women earn more, but apparently the comparison is being done solely by age group - and only one age group at that. There is no matching by education levels, yet the author ascribes the difference to unequal educational levels.

So it seems just to be saying that young women in these cities are better-educated than young men, and earn more. BFD.

"What does this have to do with the gender pay gap? "

It's the youngest work cohort. A cohort with the greatest female to male college education ratio ever. Logically, as that cohort gets older, then women's earnings relative to men's earnings will increase. So the gender pay gap will decline if the trends of the last 30 years continue.

Young women who concentrate on education and careers do better than young women who don't. Young, educated single urban women find it easier to enter the workforce, and at higher wages, than males.

Young minority men do much worse than young minority women with the poor education levels of minority males as a possible explanation. Young minority males significantly trail minority females in education attainment.

It doesn't tell us if women are more likely to drop out of the workforce to have children. It doesn't tell us if women have children when their careers stall or if their careers stall because they have children. It does not tell us if women are more likely to sacrifice advancement to fulfill family obligations. It doesn't tell us if women are less likely to move away from family support networks for career advancement.

Female-dominated professions tend to make less then male-dominated professions, but it does not tell us if female-dominated professions allow for greater family/work balance. As women enter an industry, they may accept lower incomes, even forgo advancement, but expect greater workplace flexibility then male workers.

Professions that do not offer family/work balance may fail to attract female workers as women gain more marketplace leverage. Women and men may separate into different professions, with separate compensation packages, based in part on family/work balance expectations.

The lack of male partners who can become traditional "breadwinners" may have forced young women to become increasingly self-sufficient. With marriage being less of a promise of future financial stability women maximize their income. This can be more pronounced in minority communities.

Sure, it doesn't tell us a lot of things. But all things being equal, it points to a narrowing of the gender gap.

But all things are not equal.

Look. Suppose you take a sample of 2000 people in their 20's, half of whom have college degrees or more, and half who don't.

Now divide them into two groups of 1000 each, randomly assigning 600 of the degree holders to Group A and 400 to Group B.

Which group is going to have a higher median salary? I'd guess Group A. What do you think?

To me, the phrase "gender pay gap" refers to gender-correlated differences in pay among equally educated, qualified workers. This study simply says nothing about that.

Respond

Add Comment

"To me, the phrase “gender pay gap” refers to gender-correlated differences in pay among equally educated, qualified workers."

Ok, I see your point, but the research I've seen indicates that once you adjust for various parameters the "gender pay gap" shrinks to around 5%. So you are correct that this effect won't change that 5%. But it obviously will effect the widely reported 21% gap.

Respond

Add Comment

Thanks.

I'm not familiar with the research on the issue and so don't have much to say one way or the other about the actual gap. In my experience "widely reported" numbers are usually suspect.

Respond

Add Comment

It gives us a blurred snapshot without much predictive power. Perhaps the country is not be as sexist as some claim. Males, particularly blacks and Hispanics, and some whites lincreasinly are unable to compete with females. Perhaps we should be worried about the future of young males and less rhetoric about toxic male culture.

Respond

Add Comment

Actually, it gives us a clear snapshot of something, just not what Tyler claims.

You can take a very nice photograph of a horse without claiming that it shows a cow.

Respond

Add Comment

What Tyler comment are you talking about?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I remember someone refuting this claim by noting that the racial makeup was skewed too -- the men were disproportionately Latino, which made the average young male salary lower.

Respond

Add Comment

Seems like a bit of cherry picking, but not really surprising. What is disappointing is that anyone cares about the gender wage gap. So what if men make more money in aggregate than women? What matters is the gender consumption gap, but economists don't worry about that because its hard to measure. I would bet that in total American women have higher lifetime consumption than American men and have for a long time.

+1. To quote comedian Bill Maher, guys wouldn't buy houses if they could get laid in a cardboard box. Lots of young women live off daddy, and lots of jobless divorcees live off alimony or some unexplained source. People seem concerned about unemployed millennial men slackers. But the labor force participation of men exceeds the labor force participation of women. Why don't we criticize women slackers and complain about the consumption gap?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Following the link to the Time article gave me a piece from 2010 - is there another piece following up on this?

Respond

Add Comment

Men and women should view themselves as on the same team. The question should not be how women much in isolation are earning, but how prosperous the American family is as a unit, financially and otherwise. The pay gap narrative poisons sexual relationships by casting men and women as competitors and adversaries. The pay gap propagandists are not concerned at all for our long term social health and "improvement" of the pay gap metric is often a negative indicator. The pay gap in Atlanta and Memphis is plainly the consequence of the utter dysfunction of the black American family. Urban single women are a civilizational dead end no matter how much they make.

In other words, women should know their place and stop complaining about what they see as unfair. Yep, social/family health and all that as long it is not you paying the price.

Respond

Add Comment

As a result of this political agitation, women will see "gains" but they will be in the public sector, mature megacorps on the decline, and the cost disease sectors.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

The median full-time salary. A few high earners can skew the data set. Single and young, most likely childless. More common in cities. Modest gains are better than none.

Yes, we should encourage more poor whites, black and Hispanic men to enroll in college or other training programs. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/sat-act-tests-improve-access-for-low-income-students/

Entitled white boys should take Jordan Peterson's advice and stop squandering their advantage. Tyrone should interview Tucker Carlson for further insight into male plight.

Respond

Add Comment

Thank you for article.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment