Why Men Earn More Money

[PrincessPerky]

Originally Posted by cercis

Actually, I said the USDA Forest Service and I did mean them, but the most blatent was from the Oklahoma Forestry Service. Supposedly they've taken out the subjective measures and it's all based on scores on a test they give and a scoring system of your experience (years and relevancy) and college GPA. There were 3 positions open, the applicants were mostly from my class in college, so I knew their GPA's to the second decimal place. The test - we were given our ranking on that test. I knew the experience. I scored 2nd on that test. My GPA was the 2nd highest (one guy took 5 years in the 4 year program and made a 4.0) and my experience was comparable. 3 positions. Clearly I should have gotten one - right? I had 2nd highest test score, 2nd highest GPA and equal experience. But nope, no job. They hired all men. One was the 4.0 guy (intelligent but dumb as a post when it came to actually applying what he learned) and the other 2 had GPAs which were well below mine. Well below. All men. The state, at that time, had 2 women in the forestry service, both clerical positions.

Then you can take it to court and make life easier on the next gal. Someone has to do it.

[cercis]

It wouldn't have done any good. and the Statute of Limitations is up now. I thought about it, boy did I think about it. But, in the end, I'm sure they could have come up with something, men like that always do.

And suing would have meant that there was no way I'd ever get hired in my field. It's a small field, I would have been "known". The fact that I've never been able to get hired anyway, yeah, it makes me a little bitter that I didn't get my pound of flesh when I had the chance.

[cptacek]

If it is true that women are paid less for the same work, then why hasn't some company figured that out and hire all women? They would get to pay less in salary, get the same work out of them, and make bunches more money then their competitors.

If it made economic sense for a company to do this, they would do it. And in fact, they would probably be given a medal. But, because men are still out there being hired, I'm guessing that companies do not see the kind of economic "inequalities" that many people are sure exist.

[elcheapo]

I have noticed that unmarried childless women seem to do just as well or better than their
male counterparts. I think the demand of family may cause some women to be more devoted to there family than job. Where as a lot of men are more devoted to the job even if it means losing the family.

[Snoopy2645]

I agree with above poster about the family & all that when I was a single mom I was making the same as what my dh was making a year I know because we looked at our tax returns we made the same right down to the cent. Now that I am married with 3 kids thiers no way I could make the same as dh I already know this I fail behind in that race when I got pg with my 2nd daughter & married dh & all of that.

[flash]

Originally Posted by cptacek

If it is true that women are paid less for the same work, then why hasn't some company figured that out and hire all women? They would get to pay less in salary, get the same work out of them, and make bunches more money then their competitors.

If it made economic sense for a company to do this, they would do it. And in fact, they would probably be given a medal. But, because men are still out there being hired, I'm guessing that companies do not see the kind of economic "inequalities" that many people are sure exist.

Sorry guys, but yes, women get paid less, yes, companies know it, and yes, it's quite easy to justify (and difficult to take legal action against). Being an SVP in an F500, I made more than my DH, but I also watched women struggle against this constantly. Often women are willing to be paid less and get the promotion/title, added responsibility, but not the $. Women have a harder time asking for equal $, and it's difficult to prove. There is always some variable, school or years experience or type of experience or...that can be used as justification for the difference.

I have personally sat across from a senior male executive comparing a black women with more experience and skills, and with a disability, against a man, and he flat out said he wanted to hire a man for the job. He did, she found a better position, and the man hired was fired within two months.

[cercis]

cptacek - you have to look at the underlying reason women are paid less. It's because certain employers believe they are worth less. So those employers are not going to hire a bunch of women, they believe those women won't be able to do the job.

As for the "family woman" comments - well, I know that can be true, but it isn't always. The minute I had a child, my employer moved me to the "mommy track". It didn't matter that my DH was a SAHD (well, actually, that irritated him to no end, he constantly asked me when my dh was going to get a job), the fact that I had a child MUST mean that I was no longer devoted to my job. When I pointed out that my income was the only income and that made me EXTREMELY devoted to my job, he ignored me. If it went against his preconceived ideas, he ignored it.

I did have one of the worst employers in the professional world (I have nightmares of going to a job interview and having to face him), but I know from many friends that there are many like him out there.

[dealsaver]

Originally Posted by elcheapo

I have noticed that unmarried childless women seem to do just as well or better than their
male counterparts.

Bingo. When you don't have family obligations at home, the skies the limit. When families are involved, more women than men make the wise decision to invest more of their time and energy at home.

[flash]

It is NOT that simple.

When I was promoted to manage 500 staff, many men below me in rank, managing even 5 staff, were making more than I was. When I asked about it, I was told I was not old enough (!) to make that much money, that I didn't need the money as much because my DH made a good income, or that I did not have as much "experience" (in counter to the age comment). Still, I had responsibility and authority, and was awarded multiple times as one of the top women in business.

The men in the organization were never concerned that a woman was worth less, would do less, would not work as hard, or would be distracted by home. They weren't, didn't, and were more respected than their male counterparts, both in technical and in management roles. They just didn't "deserve" or "need" the money.

The irony was when our male HR manager was replaced by a younger female, at half the salary. Guys said, hey, we can get her for half price! The HR female said, hey, you are going to pay me what you paid him. They ended up in a legal fiasco. It's easy to "justify" paying staff different amounts.

[dealsaver]

elcheapo's observation reflects recent reports on this subject. Individual anecdotes aside, single never married women without children make more money on average than their male counterparts. The reasons behind this are open to debate and I'm happy to entertain alternate explanations.

As far as personal anecdotes go, a working mom in my family makes more than any other person at her level in the company where she works. Everyone has a personal story they can relate, but I believe the differences amongst working women is telling.

[flash]

Dealsweeper, I'd love to see your references. The American Chemical Society, Chemical and Engineering News, American Association of University Women, Business Woman's Association, etc., all show that while women are making progress, they aren't there yet. Even single, childless women. As a top female in a fortune 500 company, I don't have "ancedotes", I have experience. Who do you think digs the men out of lawsuits when they get themselves in trouble?

[dealsaver]

Ok Speedy . Here's the info you requested that was widely reported on last year - link . After reading this and many other articles on the "wage gap", my instincts on this were spot on. Women make smarter choices than men about their priorities. If more men made similar choices to women when it came to the work/family balance, the world might be a better place(and men would have to complain about women making more than them). If you really want to be on the cutting edge, you should look into getting companies out of trouble where men are getting paid less for the same work!

More on this story:
link
link
link
link
link


Here's another related link and a quote:

Anne Preston finds that the public university science graduates she
studied sorted themselves between a “parent track” and a “fast
track.” The earnings of women who remain single and childless
actually surpassed those of men who report spending substantial
time engaged in child care.

[flash]

Thanks, I appreciate the info.

It seems that the book DOES point out that the average woman's pay still remains behind a man's, BUT, there are areas where women make more, and ways in which their decisions impact their pay. I certainly agree with that. And hard work and extra hours do pay off for both sides.

Even though I'm retired, I still sit at the top of a company of 50,000 employees, as well as several Boards, and I have a pretty good view of what issues companies wrestle with. Equality is still on the charts. White males with gray hair still dominate the upper tiers.

Maybe I should change companies! Except I've climbed the ladder, and don't personally have any issues

[BCHGRL]

He argues that women pursue less profitable professions; however, I would argue that the market is skewed towards more traditional male roles. Do teachers really get paid what they are worth? No, and it is has been a female-dominated career field for generations. However, doctors, for instance, are generally paid for their worth. Traditionally doctors are males. Instead of arguing that women should pursue riskier professions, the argument should be for a less skewed and more equitable market that recognizes each profession for the value to society.

Teachers and nurses are two of the most important professions in the world. Where would society be without them. However, the salaries are generally not compensatory with the value to society. Is that because these are female dominated professions?

By the way, my fiance was the one who pursued his not-so-well-paying dream of firefighting. I, on the other hand, pursued my career in business, partially based on my salary. I make twice as much as he does. I am compelled to make more; he is compelled to help people. He has a nicer home and furnishing thanks to me; but thanks to him, I know there are more important things in life than the almighty dollar.

[dealsaver]

Originally Posted by BCHGRL

He argues that women pursue less profitable professions; however, I would argue that the market is skewed towards more traditional male roles. Do teachers really get paid what they are worth? No, and it is has been a female-dominated career field for generations. However, doctors, for instance, are generally paid for their worth. Traditionally doctors are males. Instead of arguing that women should pursue riskier professions, the argument should be for a less skewed and more equitable market that recognizes each profession for the value to society.

Teachers and nurses are two of the most important professions in the world. Where would society be without them. However, the salaries are generally not compensatory with the value to society. Is that because these are female dominated professions?

By the way, my fiance was the one who pursued his not-so-well-paying dream of firefighting. I, on the other hand, pursued my career in business, partially based on my salary. I make twice as much as he does. I am compelled to make more; he is compelled to help people. He has a nicer home and furnishing thanks to me; but thanks to him, I know there are more important things in life than the almighty dollar.

When benefits and time off are taken into consideration, teachers as a group have been shown to be better compensated than engineeers.

As far as firefighters go, in North Jersey you can pull down $90,000 and still work another job on your off days. Not all firefighters are poorly compensated. Nurses at $45/hr aren't doing too poorly either where I live.

[flash]

I would say he argues that never-married childless women make more than never-married childless men. That very small population may be true.

Whether or not these women made a CHOICE not to be married, as did the men, that is probably even a smaller population.

Anytime you look at a very small group with specific criteria, you can find data to support a "surprising" outcome. Just look at all the medical studies on limited numbers of special groups, compared to the results of large populations without the same restrictions.

There are certain professions where women make more, certain professions that women tend to pursue. But as Liz Pullman points out in her book, some of these come from the way we were raised. One of her examples: ask women how many had a business before they were 18, few will raise their hands. Ask how many were baby sittters, most will raise their hands. Pullman points out that girls who are baby sitters tend to hear "how good they are with children" where as boys who baby sit or have grass trimming jobs, etc., are told how enterprising they are.

There is an entire dynamic being argued over "choice".

There is an entire argument continuing as to why women have to "choose", whereas men "get" to have it all.

If you look at the total population, women are statistically paid less than men.

I'd like to know why NBA players make 10 mil a year while regular people busting their *** are lucky to get more than minimum wage.

[PrincessPerky]

"Ask how many were baby sittters, most will raise their hands."

And who says that is not a buisness? One which boys have a hard time breaking into (ask around, how many moms want boys with their kids?)

Maybe the lack of easy work for teen boys helps them in the long run.

[shelbylovesmelby]

I know this may ruffle some feathers but.... this is my opinion that until Women recieved the right to vote we were still considered 2nd class citizens & in some circles are still considered inferior. We've played second fiddle to men since time began.

look up some of the hogwash on Womens Sufferage as to why we weren't emotionally & mentally compitent to do much more than bare children & keep house ect.

Though as others have posted there are alot of single professional women who make good livings even some higher than their male counterpart. Alas there aren't a many women CEO's out there. Plus women are often torn between taking care of their family & working. THe ones that do work have double duty not only to bring in income but to the be June Cleaver the minute they walk thru the door.

Mom-from-missouri --- YO GO MOMMA! I'm glad your girls are able to give traditional male sports a try & that you support them thru it. I wanted to play football but the only opportunity they had for girls to play was the powder puff game wich was played once a year @ half time during a regular game.

Princess Perky -- I was a babysitter as a teen & will probably be looking to be one again shortly.

[cercis]

Originally Posted by PrincessPerky

"Ask how many were baby sittters, most will raise their hands."

And who says that is not a buisness? One which boys have a hard time breaking into (ask around, how many moms want boys with their kids?)

Maybe the lack of easy work for teen boys helps them in the long run.

Perky, that was the point. The question was "how many of you had a business?" and few of the girls would raise their hands. When asked how many had babysat, most had. They didn't see that babysitting was a business and proof of their business acumen.