Harvard Study: "Gender Wage Gap" Explained Entirely by Work Choices of Men and Women

That's as may be. Certainly other peoples' schedules of values are different than mine. Still, its the market that sets the standards and the prices.

 

No.
I'm not their mommy

 

It is sad, but it has ZERO to do with them being a certain gender. The gender pay gap is a complete farce. Its dedicated by career CHOICE, NOT gender. Just because women happen to be attracted to less high paying jobs, doesn't mean they're purposely paid less or prevented from becoming engineers or programmers, lawyers, ect. Its simple logic.

As a simple example in an industry that can NOT discriminate, since its pure analytics and data clicks.
Here is the list of highest-paid YouTubers, according to Forbes.

• Logan Paul – $14.5 million. ...
• PewDiePie – $15.5 million. ...
• Jacksepticeye – $16 million. ...
• VanossGaming – $17 million. ...
• Markiplier – $17.5 million. ...
• Jeffree Star – $18 million. ...
• DanTDM – $18.5 million.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/top-10-highest-paid-youtube-stars-of-2018-forbes/

Is Youtube sexist because women aren't the top of the list or are males simply BETTER at it? There are LOADS of well paid female YouTubers, but they're not the TOPS. What sexist excuse is there here? NONE!!!!

 

I agree...the market determines price. But this thread was all about the wage gap, and it was stated that industries staffed, predominantly, by women are often lowest paid. And the child minder role was cited. I can't help but wonder what wages would be like if men filled those roles. (Ridiculous, I know - but I'm just musing...)

 

Assuming men decided that was a job they wanted to pursue, the wages for men would be the same or lower than it is for women. If daycare owners had to pay more to hire men, they wouldn't hire them. I say it may be lower because some people are uncomfortable leaving their young kids in the care of men, which would be a dis-incentive for daycares to hire men. The market will consider the economic impact of the difference between candidates but unless gender causes a difference in cost or performance, that won't be considered in the calculations. This is at a market level of course, individual behavior is not so predictable. The market response to someone avoiding hiring some group of qualified people is predictable. That business would be at a competitive disadvantage as it would have to hire from a smaller pool of candidates and possible have to pay more for less qualified workers, thus companies that hire based on noneconomic criteria would experience a higher failure rate and lower profits and performance.

 

This wage gap debate is colossally interesting since it has been against federal law since the 1960s. Makes one wonder why only a handful of the millions of "underpaid" women have filed suit.

 

Because "watching or playing with children" is among the least skilled, least dangerous, and least taxing forms of "labor" imaginable compared to any facet of working in the adult world doing any kind of actual WORK. It really is that simple and astounded you even ask the question.

 

Nor do they mention horridly unjust recent sops to trial lawyers such as the atrocious "Lilly Ledbetter Act" which allows con artists and their con artist lawyers to work at a place their whole lives, then file mountains of lawsuits en masse as classes the day after retirement. One of the worst laws every passed, we all pay for it and its abusive results, and characteristic of the disastrous Obama Administration. Needs repeal BADLY.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Ledbetter_Fair_Pay_Act_of_2009

To the actual topic, the "wage gap" lie narrative is so thoroughly debunked that only the most vapid and clueless of the LW even reference it any more, dumbass celebrities, dumbass women's marchers, about the only people dumb enough to not realize how stupid they look repeating it.

 

Yes, that in red above is an historical fact.

But history is changing. Women who get degrees are becoming competitive salary-wise with men for the same jobs.

And the Only Variable that really matters statistically is whether you have a post-secondary degree or not. Which is why there is this present craze about getting an MBA.

 

So there is no gender gap correct?

 

First of all, I hear Harvard study and immediately think I need to go ove the study with a fine toothed comb.

 

Let’s apply logic to the child care wage dilemma.

Women want careers so they hire child care. They pay a lower wage to the care giver so that there is a net gain in income or at least not a loss. It’s worth it because it gets them out of the home.

They soon realize they are taking advantage of their sisters who are working for much lower wages. The SJW dynamic takes over and wages equivalent to their own are mandated for child care workers.

Soon the career women realize they are losing money working outside the home because it’s costing the same or more for child care depending on number of children.

They are forced to quit their jobs and care for their own children. Right back in the kitchen they sought to escape.

Nope, I’m not sexist or interested in telling women what to do. Just pointing out the logical unintended consequences.

 

As someone who has 2 kids, depending on how demanding the child is, an entire day with them as toddlers was EXHAUSTING!!! Would NEVER want to do that again. Some kids are perfectly happy playing alone and are quite content with minimal interaction, while others demand your full attention. And the danger comes from the what could happen to the kids. Allergies, playgrounds, ect=) Of course someone with little skill can watch a child, but they're probably ruining that child as well. A work day in whatever job you do can be rough of course, but I'd MUCH rather go to my job then stay home every day with kids. My wife was more than happy to, even though it was hard and that was fine by me. Nannies get paid EXTREMELY well down here, especially with some education and who speak fluent English. They demand very comfortable salaries, when you consider the day to day expenses are minimal, especially if they're live-in.

 

Its a choice many have to make. Put your career on hold to save money and actually be a MAJOR part of your kids lives and upbringing. Or keep the career and lose money/break even? Another person is closer to your kids that you, but at least you have a career, eh? For some women, thats OK. Many don't seem to want the kids in the first place. I know stay at home moms who still have nannies, because playing tennis or going to the salon with friends, is more important. Weird. Most men have a different attitude and frankly don't need those 9 hrs a day constantly around their kids to feel fulfilled. There are of course, exceptions. Most Dads I know share a similar feeling that they would go nuts or insane being home everyday.

 

No H.S. diploma required. Care is required but skills - not so much. You can be replaced tomorrow.

 

Yet Obama was so godawful proud of the Lilly Ledbetter act.

 

Yeh. We don’t have kids because we don’t want them. Seems smarter than having to avoid them later.

 

Any economist can tell the above story, because - yes - it is true.

But ask yourself, why do women get paid less? And the answer is, nine-times-out-of-ten, because in the aggregate (and in the past) they do not have the same post-secondary degree level of men. But, if that was historically correct, it is changing - and fast as one generation* follows another. (And yet, as far as statistics are concerned these women without higher-level studies are still in the workforce.°

And the NCES as the answer here in total, not by income level but by degree level, which is what really matters:
Males:
Bachelors - 765K
Masters - 302
Doctorate - 83
TOTAL - 850K

Females:
Bachelors - 1025K
Masters - 452
Doctorate - 87
TOTAL - 1564K

Female/Male Ratio = 1.84, meaning what?

Meaning 84% more females than males obtain post-secondary (minimum 4 year degrees).

I leave it to you to understand the ultimate job-market consequences of those numbers (in the Information Age that has superseded the Industrial Age) ...

*Generations average 35.0 years for males, 28.7 (say 30) years for females.