How About Some Data?


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – How About Some Data?

How About Some Data?
radiator
Regular Contributor
radiator

Time for some data….. maybe if women were paid as much as men, the couple would make money faster and then they could both retire by age 35, have kids, and stay home together.

I. US Census:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-15.pdf
Average Earnings, all workers US
Male   $55,000
Female $33,000

Educational Services Average Earnings, all workers US
$39,000
“The highest-paid occupation for men and for women is Physicians and surgeons but the female median ($88,000) is only 63 percent of the male median ($140,000).” [They go on to suggest possible mitigating conditions.]

“Fifteen of the 20 listed occupations for men appear on the list for women, and in all cases, the female median is less than that for men.  In fact, the occupation third on the list for women makes the same as the occupation last on the list for men ($67,000).  A similar pattern is shown for the lowest-paid occuations (Table 6).
Sixteen occupations appear on both lists, and in all cases but one (Dining room and cafeteria attendants and bartender helpers), women make less than men in the same occupation.
“In only five occupations are female median earnings at least 100 percent of male median earnings (see Table 7).”

From Table 7:
(Expressed as ratio of female-to-male median earnings)
Hazardous materials removal workers: 1.09
Postal service mail sorters: 0.96

From Table 8: Occupations Where Median Earnings of Women are 60 Percent or Less of Median Earnings of Men: 1999:
(Expressed as ration of female-to-male median earnings)
Paper goods machine setters: 0.548
Securities, commodities, financial services: 0.560
Judges, judicial workers:  0.568
Physician assistants:  0.583
Farmers and Ranchers:  6.00
Insurance agents:  0.600

See Table 12 for the data (which includes data on whether the women have children at home as well as education):
“Compared to all women versus all men, women aged 35 to 54 have a lower earnings ratio than men 35 to 54 at all points in the distribution–at the median, women aged 35 to 54 earn 71.4 percent of similar men at the median, compared to 73.7 percent for all women compared to all men. Education has mixed effects on this difference.  THe only women aged 35 to 54 to earn more than 71.4 percent of men at the median are those with some college education, but only a bit more, 72.1 percent.  The lowest ration in the table is for women aged 35 to 54 with a college education at the 90th percentile of earnings–they earn just 55 percent of comparable men.  So education alone contirbutes little toward equality between men’s and women’s median earnings.”

II. A few selected *excerpts* from recent news stories:

A) Chronicle of Higher Education, article of Friday, March 25, 2005
Fired Worker at Livermore Lab Wins $2-Million Jury Award From U. of California

Opening paragraph:
“A state jury has ordered the University of California to pay $2.1-million to a former employee of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory who lost her job at the university-run facility shortly after testifying in a co-worker’s sexual-harassment lawsuit.”

and the closing paragraph:
“The University of California agreed in 2003 to a $9.7-million settlement with 3,200 female employees at Livermore, who had filed a class-action lawsuit alleging a decades-long practice of discrimination against women in pay and promotions (The Chronicle, November 24, 2003).”

B) The Women of Wall Street Get Their Day in Court
By PATRICK McGEEHAN
New York Times
July 11, 2004

“BACK in the Wall Street era that will surely be known as “Before Spitzer,” the biggest brokerage firms had an altogether different sort of image problem.
In 1996 and 1997, lawsuits against Merrill Lynch and Smith Barney cracked open a Pandora’s box of complaints from female brokers about hostile and unfair environments they said they found at brokerage offices. Settling those suits has cost the firms more than $100 million.

Now, as they work to repair the self-inflicted damage to their reputations from the stock-analyst scandals of the last few years, Wall Street firms are girding for another round of attacks on their treatment of women.
The main event of the summer will be the trial in the federal government’s discrimination suit against Morgan Stanley. The jury was selected on Friday afternoon.
In an opening argument scheduled to be heard tomorrow by Judge Richard M. Berman in United States District Court in Manhattan, a lawyer for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is expected to tell jurors that Morgan Stanley allowed managers and employees in one unit of its investment bank to mistreat their female colleagues, pay them less and promote them more slowly and less often than men. More than two dozen women who have worked there are expected to recount incidents of what they said was sexual harassment, including lurid details about their colleagues’ entertaining clients at strip clubs.
The trial would be a first, lawyers said, because the commission has never gone into court against a big Wall Street firm. Corporations with established brand names usually settle and avoid having accusations of bad behavior and unequal treatment hit the headlines.”

C) Secret Merrill [Lynch] documents reveal gender pay gaps at London office
Conal Walsh
Sunday February 20, 2005
The Guardian/Observer
“High-flying women at Merrill Lynch’s London office were often paid significantly less than male colleagues of the same rank last year, according to internal research carried out by the US investment bank.
The report was commissioned in 2003 in order to root out pay discrepancies and assess the bank’s potential exposure to sex discrimination and unequal pay claims. It was prompted in part by recent changes in UK employment law enabling women to find out details about their male colleagues’ pay. A senior human resources officer at Merrill described the new law as ‘a potential timebomb’ for the firm.
The report was compiled in January 2004 and coincided with last year’s bonus round. It focused on all directors across Merrill’s London operations, who typically earn six or seven-figure sums each year. Individuals’ areas of business and length of service were taken into account.
In 31 out of about 140 cases, female directors were found to be earning significantly less than male directors in the same department. Among the examples highlighted are several women who received less than 50 per cent of the average compensation of men with the same job title.”

D) Judge Certifies Suit Accusing Wal-Mart of Sex Discrimination
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
New York Times
Published: June 22, 2004

“A federal judge today granted class-action status in a sex discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart, creating a class of up to 1.6 million women, making it the largest employment discrimination lawsuit against a company in United States history.
The lawsuit, brought three years ago in San Francisco, asserts that Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest company, systematically discriminated against women in pay and promotions. The lawsuit noted that while 65 percent of Wal-Mart’s employees were women when the lawsuit was filed, only 33 percent of Wal-Mart’s managers were women.
Wal-Mart officials said they planned to appeal the ruling, which would include nearly all women who have worked at Wal-Mart since December 1998.”

E) Gap Between Pay Of Men and Women Smallest on Record
BUSINESS/FINANCIAL DESK | February 17, 2003, Monday
By DAVID LEONHARDT (NYT) 1616 words
Late Edition – Final , Section A , Page 1 , Column 2

ABSTRACT – Women’s earnings have continued to grow over last year, giving important lift to many families, helping to sustain consumer spending and closing gap between men’s and women’s wages to narrowest on record; men’s wages have failed to keep up with even low rate of inflation; women’s pay still lags behind men’s in every sector of economy; Bureau of Labor Statistics shows women made 77.5 percent of what men did last year; median full-time female worker received 5 percent raise last year, while median pay for men rose only 1.3 percent; pay gap in US is slightly larger than in most other leading economies according to Organization for Economic Cooperation; photo; graph compares wage gender gap (L)

From the same article:
“For decades after World War II, women made little progress in closing the wage gap, with full-time female workers earning about three-fifths of men’s pay. (Economists noted a Scriptural connection: in the Book of Leviticus, the value of a man’s life was put at 50 shekels and a woman’s at 30 shekels.)

By 1991 — with women’s pay rising and men’s falling after adjustment for inflation — the wage ratio among full-time workers rose to 74.2 percent from 62.5 percent in 1979.

Economists say the two biggest reasons that the pay gap is unlikely to wither completely are discrimination, which is difficult to measure, and the dominant share of housework and child care done by women, which reduces their outside job experience and causes them often to take more flexible, lower-paid positions.

F)  Wimmin: This could be a problem:

When It Comes to Salary, Many Women Don’t Push
New York Times
MONEY AND BUSINESS/FINANCIAL DESK | February 29, 2004, Sunday
By ABBY ELLIN (NYT) 936 words
Late Edition – Final , Section 3 , Page 7 , Column 1

ABSTRACT – Abby Ellin column on studies showing women are far less likely than men to initiate salary negotiations and too often willing to accept what is offered by employers or prospective employers; notes women tend to believe that hard and good work will be rewarded without asking; drawing (M)

08-27-2006 09:57 AM

Re: How About Some Data?
sunji
Contributor
sunji

Statistics are in the eye of the beholder (see above post)

08-27-2006 10:11 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: