Women in their 20s are earning more than men in their age group

[Le Jacquelope]

Me, I think this will have dire consequences for society's already low opinion of the male gender.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=452808336#

I'm glad I don't have a son. In the next 2 generations they'll be adding "and men can't even win the bread anymore!" to the already long list of male bashing slogans.

 

[Sapphire_O]

The first thing I thought when I read your post was "That's because more women in their 20s are graduating from university and college." And that's pretty much what the reporter said too. It's not favourtism to hire and financially reward an educated person.

I don't know why more men choose to wait longer for an education or choose not to get one, but their actions can't really be put onto women as man-bashing.

You'll also notice that this study is specific to large cities (LA, NY, etc.). There are plenty of men making huge money outside of cities. Fore example, diamond mining technicians make crazy cash bonuses and they are mostly males.

I'd like to know the stats for a county-wide assessment.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

The first thing I thought when I read your post was "That's because more women in their 20s are graduating from university and college." And that's pretty much what the reporter said too. It's not favourtism to hire and financially reward an educated person.

I don't know why more men choose to wait longer for an education or choose not to get one, but their actions can't really be put onto women as man-bashing.

You'll also notice that this study is specific to large cities (LA, NY, etc.). There are plenty of men making huge money outside of cities. Fore example, diamond mining technicians make crazy cash bonuses and they are mostly males.

I'd like to know the stats for a county-wide assessment.

Oh it's been known for ages that more women are graduating from college than men. That's a given.

The male bashing that I was talking about will come when men aren't earning as much as women, in general, in large cities, and this fact imbeds itself in the populace's collective psyche. I'm leaving a lot of progression out of this, so let me clarify. As much as guys already catch hell for leaving the toilet seat up, in major cities, men are going to be earning less than women in general, soon. College grad rates or otherwise, the income disparity has begun to reverse. And when you add "no longer the top bread winner" to the existing litany of complaints about men (need I post some Maureen Dowd articles?), you have a recipe for some spectacular male bashing.

This is akin to when women's waistlines started "growing" and guys started raising hell. (Smell that, guys? It smells like karmic payback time.)

Of course what happens outside the major cities will be a different story, yes, but as in all things, when something changes, it's worth watching.

BTW to the ladies out there who are graduating... congrats!

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

It's a troubling trend (not women doing well, but men not doing well), and appears to have cultural roots that are not well understood, but better get figured out, not just for society, but for the life-chances of boys and men. Here's why:

Over the past quarter-century or so, the return on human capital has risen significantly. Or to put it another way, the opportunity cost of failing to develop human capital is now much higher than it used to be. The wage premium associated with a college degree has jumped to around 70% in recent years from around 30% in 1980; the graduate degree premium has soared to over 100% from 50%. Meanwhile, dropping out of high school now all but guarantees socioeconomic failure.

In part this development is cause for celebration. Rising demand for analytical and interpersonal skills has been driving the change, and surely it is good news that economic signals now so strongly encourage the development of human talent. Yet -- and here is the cause for concern -- the supply of skilled people is responding sluggishly to the increased demand.

Despite the strong incentives, the percentage of people with college degrees has been growing only modestly. Between 1995 and 2005, the share of men with college degrees inched up to 29% from 26%. And the number of high school dropouts remains stubbornly high: The ratio of 17-year-olds to diplomas awarded has been stuck around 70% for three decades.

Something is plainly hindering the effectiveness of the market's carrots and sticks. And that something is culture.

(from "The Culture Gap" by Brink Lindsey, posted here at http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=23335730&postcount=162 )

Here's another interesting angle on pay differentials which is slightly different but obviously related.

Bankrate.com
http://biz.yahoo.com/brn/050307/15226_1.html

Why men earn more than women
Monday March 7, 6:00 am ET
Marty Nemko

For decades, we in the media have reported that women earn less than men. As a result, we've created a generation of angry women and self-conscious men.

A new book, "Why Men Earn More," by Dr. Warren Farrell, shows we've been dead wrong: For the same work, women earn more than men. His findings are based on a comprehensive review of government and other statistics.

Farrell is no right-wing misogynist. He ran for the Democratic nomination for California governor. He's the only man ever elected three times to the board of the National Organization for Women in New York City. And he's no intellectual lightweight; the Financial Times named him one of the world's top 100 thought leaders.

The book's main message is good news for women: If women do one or more of the 25 things men more often do, women can earn more than men.

Farrell does not encourage nor discourage women from doing these 25 things: "Each of the 25 usually requires trading quality of life for money. I just want women and men to be aware of their options so they can craft a life rather than just accept what drops in their lap."

The 25 can be reduced to three:

1. Choose careers that pay more. Because of supply and demand, you'll earn more by choosing a job that:

is in an unpleasant environment (prison vs. childcare facility);
requires harder-to-attain skills (hard science vs. liberal arts);
requires longer work hours (executive vs. administrative assistant);
is unrewarding to most people (tax accountant vs. artist);
demands financial risk (commission-based sales vs. government job);
is inconvenient (traveling salesperson vs. teacher);
is hazardous (police officer vs. librarian).
Many more men than women are willing to accept such jobs, even when women are paid more. For example, women sales engineers earn 143 percent of their male counterparts' salaries, yet less than 20 percent of sales engineers are women.

2. Put in more hours. That's obvious, but key. For example, Farrell cites research that "Fortune 1000 CEOs typically paid their dues with 60- to 90-hour workweeks for about 20 years. Yet women are less than half as likely as men to work more than 50 hours a week. And women are less likely to agree, every few years, to uproot themselves and their families to far-flung places to get the necessary promotions."

Why? Because women, on average, are more involved in childrearing and other domestic activities. So, if a woman (or man) expects to rise to high-paying jobs, she may need to push harder to get hubby more involved in those activities, pay for childcare and domestic services, or decide not to have children.

I asked Farrell, "But shouldn't workplaces not expect a woman (or a man) to work so many hours that family life is undercut?" He responded, "Yes, absolutely, but we must be gender-fair. If a male corporate manager chose to take care of his children, we'd applaud him but not expect the workplace to promote him as quickly. Yet when women do the same, women's advocacy organizations often expect just that. Both men and women must accept the consequences of their choices."

3. Be more productive in the hours you do work. If women produce as much as men, the good news is they will likely be rewarded. For example, women's advocacy organizations complain that female professors earn less than male professors, but Farrell cites research that among professors who produce an equal number of journal articles, "men were likely to be paid the same or just slightly less than women."

I asked Farrell, "But apart from the 25 nonsexist reasons men earn more, isn't sexism still a factor?" He responded, "There are instances of discrimination against both women and men, but on average, no. If you knew you could hire a woman for less than an equivalent man, you'd hire women to get a price advantage over your competition. Do you think businesses so hate women that they hire more expensive men even though they'd lose so much money?"

In reflecting on Farrell's book, I wonder if, rather than denigrating men for earning more, we should respect them for their willingness to do unpleasant, but necessary, work that few women will do such as roofing, coal mining or guarding a prison -- often working themselves into an early grave. There are four widows for every widower.

And men, you might learn a lesson from women and consider trading money for quality of life.

 

[Liar]

The male bashing that I was talking about will come when men aren't earning as much as women, in general, in large cities, and this fact imbeds itself in the populace's collective psyche. I'm leaving a lot of progression out of this, so let me clarify. As much as guys already catch hell for leaving the toilet seat up, in major cities, men are going to be earning less than women in general, soon. College grad rates or otherwise, the income disparity has begun to reverse. And when you add "no longer the top bread winner" to the existing litany of complaints about men (need I post some Maureen Dowd articles?), you have a recipe for some spectacular male bashing.

Sounds a little paranoid to me. Those who engage in male-bashing already (you know the kind, the few but loud who mistake hateful gender warfare for actual feminism) will continue to. But they would have anyway, right? While those that merely argue against financial inequality, will either have reached their goal and step down or will have to find some other inequality to focus on (and we're still not short on inequalitites).

So status, pretty much qou.

ETA: Qou? Quo? Something like that.

 

[only_more_so]

Me, I think this will have dire consequences for society's already low opinion of the male gender.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=452808336#

I'm glad I don't have a son. In the next 2 generations they'll be adding "and men can't even win the bread anymore!" to the already long list of male bashing slogans.

The sky isn't falling for men yet. Currently girls are doing much better in school than boys. Science and engineering have traditionally been dominated by men, but colleges are preferentially recruiting women (I won't say they preferentially accept women, but they do focus recruitment efforts at getting women to apply). This all means that women are no longer only going into traditionally female occupations, such as teachers, librarians, etc. So the woman's early advantage in school plays through into her early career. Companies are also preferentially recruiting women (and minorities). Again, I'm not saying the hiring is preferential, but the recruitment is.

To a certain extent, this is sour grapes, being a white male. In college there was a campus preview weekend specifically for women and minorities. There were support groups for women, and support groups for minorities. There are professional societies for women, there are professional societies for almost every minority group. The understanding is that the white males have such a natural advantage being part of the "majority" that they don't need help.

But times are changing. The white males of the world can no longer get by on their majority status, since by and large they don't have it any more. In the years to come the preferential treatment of women and minorities will decrease. Although probably not entirely.

 

[poppy1963]

The Earliest Societies and Religions were Matriarcal

Source

A few thousand years ago many Goddess oriented civilizations were destroyed by aggressive Indo-European tribes who worshipped a aggressive sky god, and thus females lost their sacredness. These newer world religions were monotheist, Judaism, Islam and Christianity, with one god who was male. Some fathers of the early Christian church even argued that women had no souls. Goddess cultures tended to be egalitarian, earth-centred and non-violent.

This little paragraph said it quite succinctly...though you can research it better and more reliably on other sites. It is TIME for a shifting of the axis again...time for balance to be sought. Matriarchal rule will not harm the status of men...it will likely IMPROVE it once again. It is patriarchal rule that has done this damage.

Just sayin'...*waits for the tomatoes to start being hurled*

 

[cloudy]

The Earliest Societies and Religions were Matriarcal

Source

A few thousand years ago many Goddess oriented civilizations were destroyed by aggressive Indo-European tribes who worshipped a aggressive sky god, and thus females lost their sacredness. These newer world religions were monotheist, Judaism, Islam and Christianity, with one god who was male. Some fathers of the early Christian church even argued that women had no souls. Goddess cultures tended to be egalitarian, earth-centred and non-violent.

This little paragraph said it quite succinctly...though you can research it better and more reliably on other sites. It is TIME for a shifting of the axis again...time for balance to be sought. Matriarchal rule will not harm the status of men...it will likely IMPROVE it once again. It is patriarchal rule that has done this damage.

Just sayin'...*waits for the tomatoes to start being hurled*

*shrug*

My culture's always been matriarchal.

 

[poppy1963]

*shrug*

My culture's always been matriarchal.

Really...where do you live?

 

[Le Jacquelope]

The Earliest Societies and Religions were Matriarcal

Source

A few thousand years ago many Goddess oriented civilizations were destroyed by aggressive Indo-European tribes who worshipped a aggressive sky god, and thus females lost their sacredness. These newer world religions were monotheist, Judaism, Islam and Christianity, with one god who was male. Some fathers of the early Christian church even argued that women had no souls. Goddess cultures tended to be egalitarian, earth-centred and non-violent.

This little paragraph said it quite succinctly...though you can research it better and more reliably on other sites. It is TIME for a shifting of the axis again...time for balance to be sought. Matriarchal rule will not harm the status of men...it will likely IMPROVE it once again. It is patriarchal rule that has done this damage.

Just sayin'...*waits for the tomatoes to start being hurled*

A country run by Andrea "all sex is rape" Dworkin? Oh hell no.

I'll take my society without any patriarchy or matriarchy, thank you. Patriarchal hierarchies can kiss my a-double-lightning-strikes, too.

 

[poppy1963]

A country run by Andrea "all sex is rape" Dworkin? Oh hell no.

I'll take my society without any patriarchy or matriarchy, thank you. Patriarchal hierarchies can kiss my a-double-lightning-strikes, too.

You know how change works, LT. It must go to the next extreme and swing back to the middle again...unless we as a species have actually LEARNED how to intervene in that "the long road" process. I, for one, don't see much evidence that we've learned that as a society however.

It would be ideal if we could bring the best of both to the table, eh...and provide a guiding system of "rules" that would benefit all...with give and take on both sides...hee hee.

What a pipedream at the moment. Here...pass me that pipe again!