Why Men Earn More Money

[terry1156]

A new book out on why men earn more money. Some excerps from an article at <A HREF="http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050302-112943-4511r">World Peace Herald</A> Love to hear your thoughts.

By Donna Borak

Men are natural risk takers. They have the ability and willingness to work in hazardous professions like fishery, timber cutting or as an aircraft pilot. They are more readily available to relocate to remote destinations like Alaska or Kansas. Or work 60 to 80 hour a week, according to San Diego-based author, William Farrell.

Women, on the other hand, are security seekers. They seek professions, which offer flexibility with minimal risk. They want more fulfilling careers that allow them to maintain balance in their lives and offer them time to take care of their children, he says.

"Men have been trained for thousands of years not to do what they love, but what makes money," said Farrell in a telephone interview with United Press International. "Men don't want to be engineers more than they wanted to be teachers of social sciences. But every man and every woman knows that if he is an engineer he is more likely to be employed and more likely to earn more."

Among the many statistics packed into Farrell's book, which took three years to research, each demonstrates how men end up earning more money than women simply by making certain career choices.

For example, because men commute 36 percent more than females, they end up earning $1,500 more per year. In another example, the average man works an additional year and half longer in his current occupation, and works between five and nine years overall. According to Farrell, for each additional year a man works he ends up earning 3 to 4 percent annual pay increase.

Until now, the root of the wage gap debate has been based on the presumption that women are discriminated against in the workplace, thus women ending up with lower salaries. But according to Farrell that has not been the case.

Farrell suggests that women should chose careers with higher financial and emotional risks, like a venture capitalist, rather than a teacher. Or work in hazardous professions, like an administrator in the Air Force, or be more willing to relocate to remote destinations or take jobs that require less job security. The goal is to go where there is a stronger demand for your skills with the understanding that you may be trading off career security or a regular paycheck in order to earn more money.

One of the most startling statistics in Farrell's book is that unmarried women end up earning more money than unmarried men. Farrell explains that unmarried men end up taking more fulfilling jobs because they lack the responsibility of having a family or being a caretaker. While women take on work as a part of their identity, focusing on how they can earn enough money to support themselves. When they do that, they are more willing to relocate and spend longer hours at work.

[sbsake]

People believe that men get paid more than woman. This maybe true because some people dont like risks ....

[gakline]

Hehe.... women are smarter and know that they don't have to take risks, they can get the men to do it.

Of course I'm not implying that to any of the guys here.

[sbsake]

I guess its all a game ! !

[PRICEPLUS]

Isn't this the same discussion that got the head of Harvard University in trouble?

[DivaJen]

Also from the article:

One of the most startling statistics in Farrell's book is that unmarried women end up earning more money than unmarried men. Farrell explains that unmarried men end up taking more fulfilling jobs because they lack the responsibility of having a family or being a caretaker. While women take on work as a part of their identity, focusing on how they can earn enough money to support themselves. When they do that, they are more willing to relocate and spend longer hours at work.

"The genders are interchangeable when you take away the division of labor that occurs with children," said Farrell.

(emphasis mine)
That, IMHO, is an important point to consider.

[PrincessPerky]

My DH and I have always discussed this, while there are idiots who do discriminate, by in large the wage gap is due to persoal preference, and willingness to ask for money on the part o hte worker. IE there are more femal Docs in 3rd world countries, which does not generally come with a country club memnbership. However this is not a well accepted concept, women who wnat to be mad, will stay mad. And the few instances of idiot bosses will make the news again and again, somehow sensible, and good doesn't sell.

[miclason]

I was in a negotiation workshop a while back, and the facilitator said that research has shown that women tend to negotiate better when they are negotiating things for OTHERS as opposed to when they are negotiating for themselves, and that this may be cultural (you know, the "guilt" that comes with being selfish - getting something good for yourself, vs the rewards for getting something good for others)
Edited to say: this discussion with the facilitator was regarding salary negotiations.

[dealsaver]

Single never married professional women without children actually make more than similarly situated single men(admittedly those women make up a small portion of the work force). When it comes down to it, women choose family over money more than men do and it shows up in the salaries they take home.

[Fern]

It all comes down to anatomy. Women can have children. Men cannot. So as child-bearing creatures, women do tend to take less demanding jobs, or no jobs at all, because they are expected to, or want to, have children.

Men don't have to make what is often an either/or choice, as women do.

I don't believe that men are natural risk takers and women are not. It has more to do with culture and anatomy than any predisposition for risk.

[jmjj215]

Fern,
wouldn't it be interesting to see a study of the risk aversity of men vs. women? My gut tells me men do take more risks - women are more risk-averse. But, I only base that on the women I've interacted with (mom, sisters, wife, etc.)

[cercis]

I don't believe this study. Call me a bitter woman if you want. Whatever.

I know from personal experience that I am offered less than a man with similary experience. I am offered a lower starting salary than he is. If I negotiate for a higher salary, I may or may not even get what he was offered as a starting point.

I also could not be a "timber cutter" as I was not hired when I applied. I had the qualifications, but I was not hired. I was more qualified than the man they hired. Makes you wonder.

So, I figured, screw money. Do what makes you happy. There again, I was passed over for a less qualified man. My experience (in 3 different fields with 6 different employers) was that I am viewed as less because I am a woman. I am offered less money to start, if I am offered the job at all. When it comes to promotions, it doesn't matter that my job output has significantly been consistently impressive, I am passed over for the man who does jack.

Maybe it's a personality thing? I don't know. It's danged hard not to think it's a gender thing. Right now I'm at a job I enjoy with employers I love. It's enough. For now. I've spoken with my employer at different times about different experiences I've had and they are flabbergasted (I don't bring it up, it'll be a "share experiences" type conversation). So, I lean towards thinking it isn't a personality thing.

Currently, my Dh works for the state. He makes more than a woman who does his job in another area. She has more experience overall and more seniority with the state. This is the state, so supposedly there are guidelies in place for pay, yet, she makes quite a bit less (several thousand/year). He was offered more to start that she makes. Tell me that's not a gender thing.

[dealsaver]

Originally Posted by cercis

Currently, my Dh works for the state. He makes more than a woman who does his job in another area. She has more experience overall and more seniority with the state. This is the state, so supposedly there are guidelies in place for pay, yet, she makes quite a bit less (several thousand/year). He was offered more to start that she makes. Tell me that's not a gender thing.

Possiblely not. It's not uncommon for new hires to make more than existing employees with more years on the job. I personally know a woman who's at the top of her payscale in her company(making more than any man in the company at the same position). She constantly hires new employees at a higher rate than existing ones. That's just the market. She'll renegotiate existing employee's salaries only if they ask.

The flip side is that she could make more. She's been approached for promotions over the years, but won't make the jump because of the effect it will have on her family life. A very sensible person if you ask me.

[cercis]

Did you see my post about this being the state they work for? Everyone is supposed to have the exact same payscale. If the payscale changes, they are supposed to have to give raises to bring everyone else up. They didn't do that for her. She told DH she hasn't gotten a raise in a while and was told the state just didn't have the money to give raises.

I can't believe they had the nerve to tell her that he made more than she did. That pisses me off no end.

[dealsaver]

Yes I did thank you. Perhaps your state works differently than others. There often is a pay range for certain positions. Before you are hired, there can be negotiation within the bounds of the salary guidelines. Once you accept your initial offer however, then you are locked into the annual wage increases that everyone must conform to.

[baselle]

I don't buy many of the points presented, but for different reasons.

Most of the statistics presented, while interesting, are correlations. The commute correlation with salary statistic, for instance. What does that actually mean? Is the longer commute a cause or an effect of a higher salary? This needs to be fleshed out a bit more.

Risk taking: Sigh. Other than the obvious - define "risk", there are so many stereotypes in this that its not funny. There are risk taking women; there are non-risk taking men. In addition, risk itself can be eased a bit. Isn't that what an emergency fund is all about? Even studying the career arcs of men and women with some savings, where the perception of individual risk is simliar, would be useful than what is presented here.

Children: fair enough. Not to mention that even when a woman earns more money that profit is immediately sent to a stiff day-care bill. Perhaps this whole thread should be retitled, "why men are allowed to keep more money".

Not that you've got me started, here are my thoughts and stereotypes. As a woman, I'm telling it like it is, and this is me...:
1. Men instinctually know that the HR department is not their friend. HR exists (after handing out the paychecks) to provide cover for a company against regulations and grievances, not to help employees.
2. Women are crappy negotiators in the workplace for people, period. Many women work for other women who are themselves earning less money than they should. Ask yourself - if you are in that situation, are you really able to sum up the cojones (sic) needed to negotiate a subordinate's salary?
3. Women value a workplace that has less strife and are more likely to back down if things get hot in a salary negotiation (perhaps that's a good definition of risk). Men's tolerance for that kind of heat is a lot higher.
4. Women are less likely to know, and therefore won't ask for, side deals and addendums during their initial offer. They think of a deal as a take or leave proposition. This I can tell you happened to me. I put some of my story in my journal. After the initial breakdown of salary negotiations, my would-be-boss, who had been recently hired, told me that he had himself negotiated a pay based on performance clause. If we re-started the negotiations, would you be interested in this? I said yes. In addition, he coached me on how to ask for it IN WRITING during my chat with the HR Director.

And FYI, what's so awful about engineering? Sheesh.

[cercis]

It's very hard as a woman to get hired for a job that is considered risky. Employers look at you and see "pregnancy' and "lawsuit". I finally gave up on the whole forestry proposition because I found that I would have to spend about 15 years working seasonal jobs at $8/hr just to be considered for a full time job. I had to prove that I wasn't going to get pg and quit (this is after I beat my head at it for a while, I didn't believe the other women at first).

I realized that I wasn't going to delay my family for 15 years and live hand-to-mouth for that long, never knowing what I was going to do for the 5-6 months that I was not employed by the USDA Forest Service.

I could, probably, have gone to work for private companies. I looked at them but I found their slash and burn philosophy atrocious (so, maybe a man would have been less idealistic).

So I dropped forestry and studied for a different career. DH, however, is still doing forestry and gets jobs I would never have even been interviewed for.

Risky jobs are denied most women. It's a fact of life for many, many women. I know there are exceptions, but they are the exception. My experience is the rule (and I say this after having spoken to hundreds of women and doing my research on gender breakdowns).

[dealsaver]

Originally Posted by baselle

And FYI, what's so awful about engineering? Sheesh.

Engineering is one of the few noble professions that actually provides something useful for society instead of leeching off of it.

On a completely different thought, I wonder how many male lactation consultants there are? Prima Facie discrimination against men?

[cercis]

Actually, I think there are more than a few male lactation consultants. I'd have to check, but I know the hospital I used when I gave birth had a male nurse who provided latch technique. They didn't have an actual lactation consultant on staff, but if you asked for help, he was one of the people they offered (and was much better than the nurse they first sent).

And, most pediatricians try to provide nursing help, whether they know jack-all about it. Most pediatricians are male. Most OBs as well.

And before you say anything about male midwives, that I do know exists. I know one male midwife personally and another friend used a male midwife for her birth.

[dealsaver]

Originally Posted by cercis

Actually, I think there are more than a few male lactation consultants. I'd have to check, but I know the hospital I used when I gave birth had a male nurse who provided latch technique. They didn't have an actual lactation consultant on staff, but if you asked for help, he was one of the people they offered (and was much better than the nurse they first sent).

And, most pediatricians try to provide nursing help, whether they know jack-all about it. Most pediatricians are male. Most OBs as well.

And before you say anything about male midwives, that I do know exists. I know one male midwife personally and another friend used a male midwife for her birth.

I'm sure they exist, but I bet they are as common as our friend the Ivory - billed woodpecker.