There has been an interesting discussion over at Andrew Sullivan's blog on individual choice and the gender wage gap, so I figured I'd add some context and some further thoughts.
There is no doubt that the gender wage gap has narrowed over the past several decades. Full-time working women now make 80 percent of what their male counterparts make -- a figure that is likely to increase as male-dominated manufacturing jobs become increasingly obsolete.
In spite of this progress, though, there remains an enormous income disparity between the sexes. What could be causing this inequality?
The challenge for social scientists has been determining what portion of the 20 percent wage gap is due to discrimination, and what portion is due to individual life decisions. A simple, side-by-side comparison doesn't tell you much about discrimination. It only tells you that there is a gender disparity, which could be explained by any number of things.
One way to address the discrimination question is to use a statistical technique called regression analysis that holds other variables constant in considering the impact of gender on wages. This technique is sometimes called gender-wage"decomposition." When social scientists use regression to control for other relevant job factors -- the number of hours worked, for example -- the wage gap between men and women narrows dramatically, but does not disappear.
The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this is that many individual-level choices contribute to wage differences between men and women in the aggregate. Discrimination may account for some small portion of that difference, but it certainly not all of it.
Of course, this doesn't quite settle the controversy.
A far more complicated question for policymakers is whether women's choices are really independent, or simply a function of the social pressures and cultural dynamics that unwittingly drive many of our actions. Do women who choose to work fewer hours so that they can spend more time at home with their children make this choice freely, or does society compel them to make it?
There are no easy answers to this question. People are is complex, and "society" is far from monolithic. We can't quantify the millions of subtle forces that influence our decisions and bias our perceptions. We don't know what causes some men to choose work over family and some women to choose family over work. We also don't know what causes some women to choose a work over family and some men to choose family over work.
One thing that we do know, however, is that men will never have to endure the months of physical and emotional misery associated with pregnancy. Men will never have to experience the pain of childbirth, or the stress of waking up night after night to breast-feed a newborn baby. And because of this -- ironically and unfairly -- men will always be paid higher wages.
No matter how much society progresses, the gender wage gap will never vanish completely. There will always be some women who choose to have children, and these women will have to make sacrifices for that child that a father will never have to make. This doesn't mean that men shouldn't take on more responsibility for raising children. But, in the aggregate, full-time working women who become pregnant will miss more workdays, be less productive, and see a marginal decline in wages as a result.
I'm not sure whether this is fair or not, but I simply can't see any fair way to correct the problem. We can give women the option not to have children, and attempt to remove any stigma that may be attached to the "career woman" or the stay-at-home dad. Beyond that, I don't know how to proceed without simply generating further inequity.
Any thoughts?
Those new service sector jobs, LDS edition
-
Bob Sagers was walking around an indie music festival in Salt Lake City
when a friendly stranger approached and asked for his number. “Has anyone
ever to...
1 hour ago
7 comments:
I'm not sure whether this is fair or not, but I simply can't see any fair way to correct the problem. We can give women the option not to have children, and attempt to remove any stigma that may be attached to the "career woman" or the stay-at-home dad. Beyond that, I don't know how to proceed without simply generating further inequity.
I'm not an expert by any means, but I've always been intrigued by Parental Leave laws, wherein both parents get considerable time to spend with their infant. I think allowing both parents to take extended breaks to be with their newborn may help decrease wage stagnation at the very beginning - but only if it is enacted in conjunction with the acknowledgement that doing so is acceptable within a company, or that the guy who's taking a month or two off to care for his kid won't be seen as less masculine.
I've always been slightly overwhelmed by how much my family has apparently deviated from the norm in terms of child care. Partially, the reason why my family was able to do it is because my father's ability to earn a wage isn't dependent on him being at a 9-5 job. But, for instance, there are two women at my work - one with a retired husband and one with a husband who works from home - and it is always the woman I work with who goes to pick up their kids when the kid is sick, or to bring lunch to the school when the kid forgets it, or etc.
So, I think in order to lessen discrimination in the office, there does have to be a concerted effort to make men actively taking care of their children the norm.
As for how to make parents' wages equal nonparents' wages? I think a lot of that is perception. If you take an hour off at the end of the day to get to your dentist or even because you yourself are sick, somehow you are (in general) seen as more responsible and with it than someone who does the same thing because their kid has a field trip. So maybe increasing the value of children, and recognizing that behavioral patterns associated with children also can be attributed to the child-free?
Yeah, I agree with a lot of this. Frankly, I think it's a big problem that many men feel social pressure to be the breadwinner rather than the care-giver.
But even if men take on more responsibility after infancy, women will still be forced to take more time off from work in the first six months of a child's life due to biological imperatives.
But even if men take on more responsibility after infancy, women will still be forced to take more time off from work in the first six months of a child's life due to biological imperatives.
Sure, but if fathers are encouraged to take, say, those second six months off (or even the same six months), then it'll be more of a wash, you know?
At that point, there will possibly be a wage gap between parents and nonparents - and what to do about that is a bit harder to say. I think that we as a society would have to remove the stigma having children brings to women (and that point, men) in the work environment. Because I do think there is such a stigma.
Hmm. I wonder if, in the examples you give, Pet, culture/generational expectations play a role. Of course, I know individual personality also comes into play, as I've read that many women like to be the "controlling" one when it comes to rearing children, dressing them properly and whatnot. But of course it doesn't make sense the wives are the ones to leave work if the husbands are home or have a flexible schedule.
I think that things will change as time goes on. As workers like us infiltrate the workplace and get into positions of power, we'll be able, on a large scale, to change the policies. A shift is already in place--obviously, on a small scale, but it's there.
If you take an hour off at the end of the day to get to your dentist or even because you yourself are sick, somehow you are (in general) seen as more responsible and with it than someone who does the same thing because their kid has a field trip. So maybe increasing the value of children, and recognizing that behavioral patterns associated with children also can be attributed to the child-free?
I didn't feel this way at the company I worked at. It might just have been my odd relationship there, but I felt that they were very family-friendly, but if I, as a childless, single woman, needed to leave early or take time for things like doctor's appointment, or just in general, that it was harder for me and that it was looked down on. I felt stigmatized. Not sure how much of this was my own perception or even just related to my case, but I certainly felt that way. I like that the company was very family-friendly and would not want to change that (except for the bringing dogs to work thing), but since I was not at that stage of life yet, I didn't want to have to overcompensate for those who had other commitments nor feel shamed or ostracized that I was not in that bracket. My outside commitments are just as valid.
From a financial perspective, I'm guessing that it usually doesn't make sense for both partners to take alternating half-year sabbaticals from work.
Men often choose more highly-skilled technical professions which offer better salaries. But even if both partners started out at the same wage level, it's likely that the husband would be making more money than his wife by the time she is ready to return to work. The family be would be losing income if the husband and wife chose to reverse roles after six months.
If the family is already comfortable, then I don't see why this is a big problem. But many young couples are struggling financially and that extra income matters.
If the family is already comfortable, then I don't see why this is a big problem. But many young couples are struggling financially and that extra income matters.
I didn't really think we were talking about those families. For those families, I would think both should take the law-given 6 week leave.
The problem is that for a man taking paternal care right now, is a career killer.
But even if both partners started out at the same wage level, it's likely that the husband would be making more money than his wife by the time she is ready to return to work. The family be would be losing income if the husband and wife chose to reverse roles after six months.
Really? If it's six-months-and-switch? It's different if you're talking about women who take the years off between when their children are born and when those kids go to grammar school. But if its six months, after the first six weeks at the moment you'd be losing out on the income you would have made. So, if we're talking about current law, then the family in question would be losing income either way. The question then becomes, "What is best for my family and my kid?"
I don't think the wage gap comes fully from women having kids, but I do think that it plays a part, even for women who don't have children but are medically able to.
I also think that there is the same thinking on a macro level that stigmas fathers taking paternal leave as there is on a micro level for fathers who don't help their wives on that "second shift". I don't think one begets the other, "if this, then that". But I do think that in order to do things like impact the wage gap, impact which gender picks the higher earning job (or is hired for that job), then there needs to be no stigma against men taking time, and men should be encouraged to take the time, in order to be with their families and help - on a parental level - with the newborn.
I'd venture that not having Dad there during the first couple of years as consistently as Mom isn't the whole of why what MM said here:
Of course, I know individual personality also comes into play, as I've read that many women like to be the "controlling" one when it comes to rearing children, dressing them properly and whatnot.
but on a macro level, I think its all intertwined.
And again, that won't solve the problem if a Parent Gap emerges. But I think if you want to solve the Gender Gap, then policy and our thinking about this needs to be radically altered.
I do think that in order to do things like impact the wage gap, impact which gender picks the higher earning job (or is hired for that job), then there needs to be no stigma against men taking time, and men should be encouraged to take the time, in order to be with their families and help - on a parental level - with the newborn.
I agree with this, and I think that there really should be more of an effort to encourage fathers to dedicate more time to their families. I think that there is a perception that men shouldn't take time off from work, and I think that that is bad for both men and women.
I do believe that six months is a very long time in the business world, especially if you're at a pivotal point in your career. Parents who take off for half a year will likely see their wages stagnate, as they're passed over for promotions and more challenging work opportunities. This is particularly true in fast-paced work environments. A mother working in the technology field for example, will have to spend more time playing catch-up, which means that she'll have a lower long-term earnings potential.
On some level, I think that this is fair. If one woman chooses to start a family while another woman chooses to dedicate herself entirely to her career, the more dedicated employee should get the promotion (assuming equal competence).
Post a Comment