Gender Differences in Executive Compensation and Job Mobility (2010)
repository.cmu.edu
repository.cmu.edu
Fewer women than men become executive managers. They earn less, hold more junior positions, and attrit faster. We compiled a large panel data set on executives and formed a career hierarchy to analyze promotion and compensation rates. Given executive rank and background, women are paid more than men, experience less income uncertainty, and are promoted as quickly. Amongst survivors, being female increases the chance of becoming CEO. Hence the gender pay gap and job rank differences are primarily attributable to female executives attriting at higher rates than males in an occupation where survival is rewarded with promotion and higher compensation.
I wonder if there is any/what the correlation is between the attrition rate of these females and pregnancy - is becoming pregnant a significant blocker to their survivorship rate?
It is most implausible to suggest that giving birth and caring for young children is the predominant reason why female executive managers, who average 50 years old in our sample, quit. Other unobserved factors leading managers to attrit could include more un-pleasantness, indignities, and tougher unrewarding assignments at work, examples of factors that reduce the attraction of work without necessarily affecting productivity or human capital acquisition. Perhaps women are subject to this form of gender discrimination. Another hypothesis is that women acquire more nonmarket human capital than men throughout their lives, and hence find retirement a relatively attractive option.
It's a shame that they have to discredit their paper by ending it with pure speculation ("could include...").
Considering it 'necessary' is actually part of what makes this a problem. If people knew how to want instead of need, they might next learn how to delay gratifying those wants. Instead, desire becomes confused with necessity and suddenly you can't live without an HDTV right now.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income_per_household_me...
Data and people should probably not be divided into the majority and nothing else.
Us "civilized" countries will just sit back and act haughty while we try to deal with skyrocketing autism/developmental disorders/disabilities as our populations continue to give birth later and later in the fertile/viable part of their lifespan, thus significantly increasing the chances of developmental disabilities in our offspring.
Yup, that's a great idea. Nothing could possibly go wrong.
It's attitudes like yours that keep women out of the tech industry. At literally the same time that you're telling young men to take risks, do a startup, and try for the big win, you're telling women to do what? Stay at home and feel despondent while little Timmy says he doesn't have to for the 5000th time that day? That's an attitude for the 1950's, not modernity.
Not even going to touch the ableism in this comment. You're literally saying that people who are differently abled or neuroatypical are worthless.
You should be ashamed.
However, some people actually enjoy spending time with their kids...
If you had your first child age 35 (I think the official limit before physicians consider you late for having children), at 50 your oldest child will be 15.
75% of women have their first child before age 30.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/114055529676/my-verdict-on-gend...
If you're going to read it, don't just skim it; read it from end to end.
That women are driven away by bias/discrimination is the true failing of our workplaces.
Although this does not support the "more qualified" argument, the study was specifically tailored to control for attrition from pregnancy, and the authors conclude that they are not entirely sure why older female executives quit at a higher rate than comparable male executives. It's not unreasonable to assume that it could be due to "discrimination" in the form of indignities and unfair assignment of tough/menial work, as the authors suggest.
There are certainly current results from those legacies, since people tend to hire people like themselves. And there probably are more than a few surviving neanderthals that still believe those practices should be followed.
So yes, being a male, just like being white in the US, does give you certain current or legacy advantages.
Also, perhaps women getting pregnant was and is a real issue. There might be real risks and costs attached to companies.
And you make the same mistake as the parent I replied to, looking at thing out of context: presumably there are jobs where women were less likely to be promoted, but at the same time you neglect that there are jobs where men are less likely to be promoted (or being hired to begin with). Overall, men don't get a free pass in society, otherwise there wouldn't be so many books and articles on career advice. It's not like "hey, you are white and male? - hired!".
The context mistake is particularly easy to see in IT: because there are many more men than women in IT, for every woman who doesn't get promoted there are several men who don't get promoted. But only if a woman doesn't get promoted it makes headlines and she can sue for sexism.
Real risk or not, it's the cost of doing business in America - it is illegal to discriminate against women on that basis.
Neanderthals are deemed to have been gentle and intelligent, btw, their reputation as brutes was misguided.
Men did not invent pregnancy. If you want businesses to hire women, it seems fair that you should compensate them for the added risk.
Suppose you have two equally qualified candidates, one male, one female. If an employee quits, it costs you months of productivity and thousands of dollars to recruit a new candidate. Obviously the male candidate is economically more viable because he is less likely to drop out because of children.
If you don't acknowledge that issue, you will never be able to help women (if they need help, which is not a given). I think the state should pay businesses for the loss, or perhaps even reward businesses if their employees become pregnant, if society wants more women to be hired.
Feminist stance is of course that men should be equally like to drop out and take on the "burden" of raising kids (that is what feminists think of family life - the only explanation why women put up with children is because the patriarchy forces them to do it). The reality is that being allowed to spend time with their kids is actually a privilege, not a burden. Women drop out to enjoy the time with their kids. They also tend to choose professions that don't allow them to provide for a family long before they even have kids.
Otherwise, why wouldn't they just continue to work and use their salary to pay a nanny?
Mandate that both parents must take at least some baseline time off from work. Say mandate at least three months. There will be people who take longer, and some who opt out of work altogether but this would eliminate the thought pregnancies get in the way of productivity for one gender and not the other.
Lastly, this would actually take away privileges from women (privilege to choose to be a stay-at-home mom), but if that's what feminists want, why not.
Acknowledging the 'issue' you described above isn't taking a brave stance against overreaching feminism. It is actually illegal. Not to say that people don't do it all the time. (Yay, at-will employment!)
This conversation is actually a perfect illustration of how one aspect of gender-based discrimination works.
And if we're going to talk about speaking statistically, according to the Disparate Impact clause, if whatever criteria you use for employment happens to statistically discriminate against a protected class, what you're doing is also illegal.
(And while we're here, black people are more likely to get arrested, and Russians are more likely to be alcoholics. I'll be sure to mention that the next time hiring is under debate.)
It being illegal is pretty irrelevant for the discussion - in Nazi Germany it was illegal to be a Jew. Laws are being made by fallible people.
Is it really discrimination if arguably the man brings higher value to the company than an equally skilled woman? This is very different from discrimination against minorities, because there is an actual relevant difference between men and women.
It's not fair, but that is what nature has handed us. If societal consensus is to make up for the difference, society should do so via their governments, not shift the burden to random private people. It's not a business owner's fault if you get pregnant, especially since it's probably illegal by now to have sex with an employee.
It seems logical that a woman who reaches the highest levels of a corporate structure are going to be, on average, more resilient, driven, and/or intelligent, then their average male competitors when it comes time to make a promotion decision. Many others will be lost to attrition.
95 out of every 100 workplace deaths are men.
If you are looking for a reason women are paid less, look at this. The lowest paying majors are completely dominated by women: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/09/11/220748057/why-w...
In fact, equally qualified women are twice as likely to be hired as men: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/1...
If you want to play fair, as this paper did, and consider a particular job type (highly paid executives), it would make sense to start calculating averages or percentages.
I don't think this washington post article really proves anything about the discrimination women experience within the workplace, after getting hired. We do know that the gender balance is unequal in the STEM workforce, and for various reasons, some employers feel compelled to try to balance that ratio by hiring more women. However, this does not mean women experience greater upward mobility after entering the organization.
Companies are clearly working hard to discriminate against men when hiring, and without evidence the default conclusion should be that they do the same thing within organizations when handling promotions.