In the news: women are outearning men

[Anna8888]

In this week's Economist there's a review of a book called Economic Facts and Fallacies by Thomas Sowell. I quote:

"Today, never-married, childless, university-educated American women of between 40 and 64 earn $7,000 more than similar men. No explanation for this positive gap is forthcoming. But at the very least, it suggests that, where women do earn less, it is due more to rational factors (suche as their unwillingness to work long hours) than to sexism."

I agree. And in the UK they found this year that for the first time ever women under 25 earn more than men. Not much more but more.

The explanation for the survey is presumably because women are cleverer, get better exam results and usually get better universities degrees. If we took the 80 Barclays Capital new managing directors announced this week (6% are women only) and looked at the year they entered presumably about 15 - 20 years ago I bet most of the women have just chosen to leave rather than been discriminated against.

One factor is most women marry someone who earns more or will earn more - they marry "up" - therefore any rational decision about can we afford to lose your female £20k a year salary or your male £40k a year salary is always going to leave the woman giving up (if either do). My ex husband and I had that arrangement too - that had the nanny not worked out he would give up work, not me. He suggested that before we even married based on the fact I would always earn a lot more.

As women do still instinctively prefer men with prospects and some money whatever they might admit to they may well continue to earn less than men... perhaps unless and until (if ever) they are as likely to seek out men for the reasons men seek out women which is in evolutionary terms unlikely.

There was another article in the Economist, sometime last year, which had a great chart showing how women's penetration of the workplace was plateauing - how after two decades where an ever greater percentage of women were in the workforce, the percentage of women was stabilising in nearly every Western country. The percentage was different across countries (explained by cultural and societal differences) but the trend was the same.

SO if they're leaving so much there's not huge point in recruiting them if you have any choice about it or go for women over 40 every time or infertile women or women less likely to have babies I suppose unless you're recruiting in a field where it's convenient if they leave to solve promotion log jams later.

The Economist is talking about a very small, unusual group of women in the US. Hardly a general rule. They are also talking about the generation who embraced feminism... society when these women were young was alive to discrimination. Today our culture has slipped back hugely.

And how do you explain the fact that in our economy women are paid less than men for the same job - or for work of equal value? There is a 20 per cent pay gap. It's not down to women being slack. Or working part-time - it applies to full time work.

Or that local authorities are bellyaching about having been exposed for routinely discriminating against women and trying to avoid paying compensation? And that unions are actually collaborating with the employers in this attempt to deny women their legal rights? Even though the women affected are only allowed to claim back six years, rather than the full extent they lost?

Xenia - If I was a man running a company I would draw the opposite conclusion - recruit women like crazy since they seem to work harder than men when young and badly paid (so create more value doing dog-work), then let them leave when they reach childbearing years to free the cushy well-paid senior jobs for men .

Are women doomed?

edam - I don't agree that society has "slipped back hugely". And the point of the quotation in the OP is an example of a situation in which women and men have identical family circumstances and education (and there aren't many possible examples) and demonstrates that, in those circumstances, women are performing better than men.

Which is very interesting and encouraging.

And the point of the quotation in the OP is an example of a situation in which women and men have identical family circumstances and education".

Not really, the men could have 10 children for all we know. Just that their wives are at home. I doubt the women in this survey has 10 children though.......I find it depressing!

FairyMum - "never-married, childless, university educated" men and women were compared

I think we are doing great work in equal pay local authority cases at the moment, much to the chagrin of people like dust bin men in the NE whose jobs have been found on a par with cleaners. Those female cleaners are getting their damages but it's it's 30 years after the equal pay act. No time for complacency.

Sadly a good few women don't get paid as much as men because they don't ask for more pay. We certainly need to teach daughters about assertive ways to ask for more pay, prove they deserce it and have the confidence to change jobs for promotion when it's needed and ensure they aren't unpaid skivies in the home too.

Yes, it's a well-recognised fact that women on average find it much harder than men to negotiate better financial terms for themselves - be that at work or in the home (where their labours too often go unpaid and unremarked).

Which is why I am so hugely vociferous about the value and necessity of negotiation skills for women. Negotiation analysis should be taught at school IMO.

Yes, someone rang me to offer her services earlier in the week. She was absolutely hopeless, particularly considering her supposed profession. She just couldn't sell or persuade or negotiate at all.

One explanation as to why never-married, childless, university-educated American women of between 40 and 64 earn $7,000 more than similar men is due to the phenomenon of women marrying up (as pointed out by Xenia).

Because of this, the first males to go in the marriage market are higher-earning men and lower-earning females. This leaves as lower-earning males and higher-earning females in the never married pool. Hence it is plausible for females in this group to earn more.

I am assuming we are talking about the hetero market. Not sure how things work in the gay market.

blueshoes - yes, you have a point

I was never regarded as wrong to ask for a pay rise or I never noticed it although I accept that some conduct from women is regarded as unacceptable at work which shown by men is regarded as admirable.

Xenia - I often think that women have a hard time calculating their own value-added (or worth to the company, if you like). When you ask for a payrise, you need to be absolutely sure that what you are asking for is fair and reasonable relative to the value you add in your work, and to be able to demonstrate that. What do you think?

Agree entirely that some behaviours that men are admired for are killers for women. In one of my previous jobs also the secretaries and powerpoint operators (who were pooled) would nearly always do work for men before doing work for women professional staff... they were absolutely appalling about it.

May be see what you think is fair and then double it and work down from there perhaps.. and if you don't ask you don't get.

Oh Xenia - I'm far more figure-based than that . I can get right into the nitty-gritty of expenses, perks, why I need them in order to fulfil my duties. That's what I mean by calculating value-added - women need to be able to say exactly what they are adding to the company in £££ terms as a starting point, have done market research on competitive salaries for that within their industry and then add on all the expenses they need (telephone, car) and then negotiate their variable / incentive-based remuneration.

There are a lot of women who think they are lucky to be offered a job rather than thinking the employer is lucky to have them.

I realise this if a very tenuous link, but it is also true that statistically married women live less long than unmarried women, whereas married men live longer than unmarried men. It is strange the the sort of stability that women seek out from marriage has repurcussions on lots of aspects of their life in a negative sense, whereas it tends to have the opposite for effect for men. Sorry to hijack, just got me thinking...

oh an employer would be lucky to have me alright. can't get a babysitter though.

ooh good job we're not married rantmum

(i mean me and dp, not me and you rantmum )

Xenia - I agree, but that's because they haven't worked out how valuable they are to the future employer (he/she really isn't doing them a favour ) and it doesn't even cross their mind to do so. That mindset needs to change and women need to be better prepared in their youth to realise their value, calculate it - and negotiate themselves a good deal.

Yes, I obviously try with mine. I would rather not take on work than be under paid for doing it and often refer people to cheaper sources.

On married women living shorter lives (and indeed having worse mental health) it is so. Arugably I am better off as a single parent than if I had a partner.

Directing potential clients to cheaper suppliers is an excellent negotiation tactic in my book, Xenia