Lesbians tend to earn more than heterosexual women
economist.com
economist.com
> if employers promote them on the assumption that they will not have children and so devote more time to work than straight colleagues...
(Edited Some Spelling Issues SRY)
This seems to be the correct empirical evidence for me. I greatly admire people with a strong work ethic BUT it usually comes down to how many priorities you have above your priority to work. I feel like I have a strong work ethic but I can not compete with single, no children workers who put work above everything else or Frank Sinatra / Jimmy Johnson (Football Coach) who placed their work above their families.
1. They leave jobs after being outed and the churn results in lower earnings. 2. Two men, unencumbered by glass ceilings, forego max earnings to have better work life balance.
EDIT: I should qualify that I don't remember what the conclusions were.
I think it's less concern, and more the actual act of having children taking time and experience away from the persons resume.
That isn't to say this explains all of the penalty. Homophobia leading to less employment options could also be an issue (and unequal homophobia targeted at either gender).
Source? Want to check if adjustments are made for occupation type.
Meaning that, perhaps, they are less likely to be taken more advantage of than their hetero counterparts only because of the innate disposition dynamic they create in dealing with others.
To reiterate, lesbians, who are in high-functioning/demanding positions seem to be more willing/capable of standing up for them selves in negotiations in such a way that they can (apparently provenly) produce better results for themselves.
TL;DR: assertive type-a behavior has its merits in negotiations, regardless of gender.
Sales to others WRT to a product that you are not/do not personally make is different than all other sales of personal services/self traits...
I'm sure you understand this.
The real thing is that the best ones tend to be "single" mothers, so they are very motivated. Sales is 90% motivation, talking to a lot of people.
The average sales person tends to be lazy as heck.
http://www.bls.gov/cex/anthology/csxanth8.pdf
Anyway looks like a 60:40 split between men and women for buying vehicles from 1991-2000. However, there is a much more stark difference in the types of vehicles bought. If you are mostly selling used vehicles then most of your customers are men.
If you are pushing new vehicles and leases, it shifts more in favor of women.
Not saying that's your opinion, but sometimes this attitude comes out in some of the HN comments that it's unfair for someone who works 60 hours a week and answers emails at 9 pm to get a promotion over the single mother who walks in the door at 9 am sharp and is pulling out of the parking lot at 5.
I think the complaint is often more -- judge the actual business impact. Not shallow shiny measures, such as how long you're in the office.
Unfortunately, what I tended to see was a lot of ping pong from noon to 5pm, and then work from 5pm to midnight. Just because your workplace is your fun place, doesn't mean you deserve a promotion.
I'm Dad and I pick my kids up at school at 3:15. I will leave at 3:05 and I will do work at home if necessary. My problem is other people are clearly more valuable to the bottom line of "Getting their Work Done." I didn't marry till I was 33 and I was always the MVP. After being married I can't just sleep and eat a project till it gets done anymore. Heck I would pull two all nighters a month just to know everything was done.
Right now I am in the point of life where my experience and core values are my value to the job. Thankfully I am in a place where those matter to my employers.
Study after study has proven this statement false when accounting for the type of work done.
Most people who argue for wage-equality are arguing for a more fundamental change: how come women and minorities -- the traditionally oppressed groups -- just happen to have lower-paid fields? You attempt to dismiss it by arguing that since the type of work done is different, it's not an issue worth considering.
For Latina's, it is an SES issue. Having poor parents negatively impacts life opportunities.
As for the difference between women and men, society puts more pressure on men to be the primary income earners, which is one reason men take on vastly more dangerous jobs and work longer hours. Men are also pressured to take far less time off for children, and single men have less access to having children than single women, thus increasing the pay they earn over the lifetime of a career.
>the traditionally oppressed groups -- just happen to have lower-paid fields?
Why do men generally have the far more lethal fields?
In most of the U.S. there is no equivalent paternity leave, so this risk (to the employer) is asymmetric.
If you pick a low-valued career, you will probably be paid less. No need to bring in gender here... movers are mostly men, and they're also low-value.
> Should they essentially be punished for those choices, particularly when you consider the power that money buys?
It's not punishment. They willingly give up the power of money by picking a career that earns less. If someone wants the power of money, pick a different career. Again, gender doesn't matter.
> Are some of the occupations that are dominated by women undervalued and underpaid, such as teaching and nursing?
Yes, but it has nothing to do with the dominating gender. Those fields are just under appreciated... it's a societal problem if we under value those professions, but (again) gender doesn't matter. Male nurses suffer the same problem.
It seem what you should be asking is: Are women inherently biased to pick these nurturing roles, and is this because of societal or biological pressures? If it's biological, is society responsible for correcting the economic imbalance by effectively subsidizing those roles? Should we accept that some careers are valued less, make this very obvious during formative years (highschool/college), encourage rational decision making, and accept any natural gender imbalances that result?
If ${group} is valued less in society then it isn't a stretch that ${activities group does} becomes less valued in society.
Many here are quick to point out that weed was outlawed because it was an activity that minorities enjoyed.
I'm not saying that this is the case (idk) but its not an outlandish idea.
We don't pay people based on how we "value" them. Labor is a market like any other.
Certain jobs are worth less than other jobs. Can we agree on this? I think it's reasonable that college education and experience allow me to earn more than someone working a job which requires neither.
Nurses btw, make very good money.
Looking at a list of male-dominated fields just now, I noticed that they're all dangerous occupations: Construction, Logging, Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction.
Should they essentially be punished for those choices by bringing safer jobs' salaries to the same level?
Do you think someone is purposely organizing the system so that women are paid less?
For everyone.
The rest of your comment seems to be about ancient history - what did you mean to say about society today?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women%27s_rights_(...
That's the long story of the struggle for justice for women.
You seemed to say that gender injustice could only be perpetrated by some shadowy caricature "someone." I'm saying there is such a someone: the patriarchy.
I think the people who make such decisions pay everyone as little as possible.
http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/lean-out-th...
That's begging the question.
It's also a loaded question.
If I make the decision to take up painting; my economic worth will decrease. That's personal.
I, as somebody who aspires to be a father some day, will try to make it worthwhile for mom; but ultimately her lifetime financial earnings will be less with kids, and that's something she will decide.
As far as occupations which are "underpaid", that's up to the employees. Nurses are paid what they value their work at, if they don't want to work for that money, they don't have to. Because nurses don't mind working for what they're currently paid, they are paid that much. If they were paid less, fewer of them would do the work.
Men are punished by working in more dangerous fields. They are literally killed for their choices and at a far worse rate than any income inequality, even of the most exaggerated reports.
But perhaps my biggest gripe over this whole issue is that I believe that had the occupational death rates for men and women been opposite what they are, we would be having radically different conversations about the issue.
(Asking sincerely, not as critique.)
The TLDR is the strongest correlating parameter that affects wage gap is child-rearing but not necessarily gender. Given a woman doesn't step out of the work force to raise a child, she should expect to have relatively equal pay to a man. That said society constantly pressures women to be the child-rearing gender in a hetero sexual relationship.
I don't think the pressure is unjustified either; it is, after all, literally the only reason the species exists.
Sure, as long as she puts in the same hours and is as willing to travel.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/whats-re...
Women aren't paid less because they take jobs for less money, women are paid less because men are promoted more, men dictate the location of families more, and women are encouraged to take on more of the homemaking as compared to their husbands.
Oh good, we've moved past the idea that a woman doing a specific job should earn less into a much harder problem of how do we convince society that women's careers are as important as mens.
edit: clarification: men dictate location of families.
TO GP: There may be /are persons who argue that, of course. Don't pretend to be an 'objective'/impartial judge yourself.
Unfortunately that's the way it is for a lot of people after a certain point. The only counter example of this in tech I can think of is David Heinemeier Hansson.
Hyperbole much? He wasn't silenced in the slightest (which would be difficult to do, given the amount of money, i.e. power he has).
If getting a deleted tweet reprinted in several tech publications and on the top of HN is being "silenced", I would love to be silenced more.
Poor people?
[ What ??? You guys don't like it when you get called out on class war ???? ]
But thats not on topic.