It would seem to go without saying that implies all the top performers are going to be men, and if the system is performance based, that means the promotions will tend towards the men.
I think it is also interesting to study the money men and women bring separately into their relationship and how that plays into relationship dynamics.
That's... not true at all.
The IRS tax forms even have an entire category for people who are married but maintain separate finances. It's called "married filing separate".
Now in some states there are laws that property acquired after marriage is shared, you can still maintain separate finances, and then it is up to a judge to figure it out in the case of divorce.
Also, you keep what you entered the marriage with. If you maintain separate finances, it's a lot easier to disentangle if you get divorced.
I have a friend who is on his second marriage, and his wife is also on her second. They maintain separate finances because they were both burned on a divorce, and they are very aware of what is common property and what is not. They could split up pretty much any time without a lawyer because they keep such good books.
Common Law States
Most states, except those listed as community property states below, use the "common law" system of property ownership. In these states, it's usually easy to tell which spouse owns what. If only your name is on the deed, registration document, or other title paper, it's yours. If you and your spouse both have your name on the title, you each own a half interest in the property unless the title document says otherwise. If an item doesn't have a title document, generally you own it if you paid for it or received it as a gift.
Community Property States
If you live in a community property state, the rules are more complicated. But in general:
spouses own equally almost all property either one acquires during the marriage, regardless of whose name the property is in
half of each spouse's income is owned by the other spouse during the marriage, and
debts incurred during marriage are generally debts of the couple.
In community property states, the following is separate property:
gifts given to one spouse
property either spouse owned before the marriage and kept separate during the marriage, and
inheritances.
The community property states are: Alaska (by agreement), Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. (In Alaska, spouses can sign an agreement making specific assets community property.)
And why would Wisconsin choose this, when it never had any connection to Spain?
Think gaming equipment, steam sales for games they will never play, flying, cars, tech, 3d printer and what not.
Compared to that, feminine hobbies are few bucks once in a while.
That is not personal purchase on hobby.
My actual point is this type of discussion doesn't really add anything. It's difficult to prove, and prone to an extreme amount of bias combined with generalizing from a small sample.
Hahah. Sorry, but there's just no way. The entire McMansion industry, the furnishing industry, IKEA, fast fashion brands and high fashion are all driven by women's business.
I agree about the rest though, and I think the McMansion industry bit is an insightful comment. I'll also add giant luxury SUVs to this list.
But I'm thinking that someplace like Bed, Bath & Beyond probably gets more female customers, and would be a preferred place to go for the items you list. That store has fancier stuff than IKEA, and is seriously overpriced; it's not a place you shop at to get a good value. I'd also suggest various mall shops or department stores.
This is anecdotal too, but in my experience women spend FAR more money on unnecessary stuff than men. Here's many examples: - donations to churches - designer clothes - luxury SUVs - jewelry (the conflict diamond trade wouldn't exist without women) - eating at expensive restaurants - McMansions - stuff for those McMansions (e.g., custom-made "window treatments": my Mom just spent $15K on "window treatments" for her new house!) - luxurious vacations (as opposed to, for instance, staying in hostels)
Of course, I'm generalizing, and probably mostly describing the Gen-X to Boomer white American woman demographic, but it's what I've seen the most.
As for men, I work with a bunch of Millennial and younger men, and they spend money on Magic cards and video games, and that's about it. That stuff costs hundreds of dollars, and that's about it usually unless you go really nuts. A woman can easily spend a few hundred dollars on a single article of designer clothing. Meanwhile, these younger men don't seem to really give a shit about cars the way men in older generations did.
And of course the things on my list aren't all exclusive to women; some men like eating at nice restaurants too, some men have BMW SUVs, etc., but in my observation, most of those purchases are either done by women directly, or insisted on by them if they're married.
I can see why you think that women tend not to have "expensive hobbies" the way some men do, but even here you're actually wrong. Here in my metro area, the single women all seem to be members of some kind of exercise class (like Zumba, Barre, Orange Theory, etc.). Those memberships are quite expensive, and easily comparable to men spending money on Steam games. Single women also almost all have dogs, and those can be really expensive too when you account for fancy food, grooming, dog-walking, dog-sitting, etc. The problem is that you're not looking at where people are actually spending money, and you're not counting women's purchases as "hobbies". My most recent ex-girlfriend had two big "hobbies" before I met her: one was her Barre class, which was hundreds of dollars per month. The other was going out to eat: she basically had a hobby of going out every weekend with her girlfriends to some new super-fancy restaurant in DC. That too would amount to hundreds of dollars per month. The other thing I've seen with single professional women is they spend a LOT of money on alcohol: they like to go "out for drinks" a lot, and of course a single drink at a nice DC restaurant will probably run $15. That really adds up over a month. So no, not a lot of women buy 3D printers or fix up old cars, but they do have luxurious things they like to spend $$$$ on.
They're on average more interested in people, so they tend to choose to become nurses, teachers, etc., while men are interested in things and become software developers, engineers, etc.
I have no idea why income HAS TO be distributed equally. Unless you want to force women to become software developers..? But why.
The idea that women were somehow shut out of the industry doesn't really hold up. My programming classes in the 80s, for example, were about 50-50, and in my early career, I worked under several senior women programmers/technologists.
What is your point?
"Violence and intimidation" in a modern context is exactly what #MeToo was about, so it didn't stop just because women have equal rights under the law. Frankly, a lot of women don't want to put up with that kind of crap and so choose careers in industries where they feel safe (which often pay way less).
Also, nurses are some of the least empathetic people around. Don't be fooled by the common misconception; they're usually not caring people at all. "Nurse Ratchet" is not that far from the truth. My mom was a nurse, and I've met many others; they're just not the nicest people around. And there's a good reason for this: a highly empathetic person would not last very long as a nurse. They'd get burned out very quickly, after seeing so many sick and dying people up close day after day.
This is accurate, but not for the reasons you have given.
Think of it this way. Within a profession, say "lawyer", there are different career paths. One career path involves a lot of travel away from home, and one does not. Because traditionally women are expected to be home for children, women tend to more often select the path that involves staying at home more, which tends to also pay less.
So then, when you look at "lawyer", you see a pay gap, and then you dive in and see that the women have chosen the "lower paying job".
But that still doesn't account for the entire pay gap. It still leaves about 7% difference.
That last 7% is what people are concerned about. That women doing the same job with the same experience get about 7% less on average than men, depending on the field. In some fields (I believe medicine is one), there is no pay gap between women and men with equal experience (although there is still an opportunity gap, where men will be promoted more often with equal qualifications).
Then there is tech, where there is a pay gap between people with equal experience. I've seen this personally first-hand (but at least when the manager was called out on it he made it right and gave the woman a raise, but before being called out, it didn't even occur to him that he was making that decision).
> I have no idea why income HAS TO be distributed equally.
Because people doing the same work should get paid the same for doing it. And because you shouldn't be barred from a career for reasons that aren't related to the job (ie. your gender).
Given that women are 1/2 the population, and given the sample size, women and men should on average be making the same amount of money. But they aren't. And study after study show that the reason is bias against women, and not women's choices.
Don't you think that is something that should be changed?
>But that still doesn't account for the entire pay gap. It still leaves about 7% difference.
My understanding had been that the wage gap was a result of statistical malpractice. Further, I had thought that the intraprofession pay comparison between genders boiled down almost exclusively to (willingness to negotiate) and (taking time off of work to have children).
[0] http://freakonomics.com/podcast/what-can-uber-teach-us-about...
Some people don't believe that men and women are (on average) slightly different so to them any gender inequality is evidence of fowl play.
They don't see it as forcing women to do things they don't want, but righting a social wrong.
Those damn geese.
Aren't there laws that prevent discrimination on gender and race pretty much in every first-world country? That would make it illegal to pay a woman less for the same job.
If you consider jobs where the title is the same but the professional works B2B, maybe women are less likely to ask for a better pay? That's why pink razors cost more, after all.
Female soccer players make less money because less people watch and there is less money, same thing for BBC journalists who demanded the same pay even though they got 10% share compared to their male colleague.
There are so many variables...
I think this is a great example! The US women's soccer team is better than the men's but they make a fraction of the money. It's not their fault that sports have a sexist history that influences viewership, ad revenue, and ultimately their salaries.
We have some women teams here in Spain, and while there's some movement in the league honestly it feels... like watching amateurish football. I guess they need time to catch on, but meanwhile it's not very appealing.
Also, over in Tennessee, the UT women's basketball team has been much, much more popular for decades now than the men's team ever was.
If a business pays employees more than the market rate, it will be less profitable and thus more likely to fail. If a business pays employees less than the market rate, it will lose employees to competitors and it is thus more likely to fail.
Also, to say that "men decided" is pretty strange. It suggests a conspiracy, and it suggests that there are no women who could start companies or otherwise be in management.
Nobody would forgo a good bread, so Germans writing "Germans don't buy from jews" on bakery windows were just making the case that the bread had, within a few years, become intolerable. Hollywood studios stopped hiring communists because communists just aren't very funny. etc...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcDrE5YvqTs -- According to the DOL there is a much smaller than typically quoted wage gap, and there are additional variables not accounted for.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-...
Also WRT forcing women: "Uncle" Bob Martin observes that at one time programmers were 50% women.