Wednesday, September 01, 2010

Evidence of a New "Reverse Gender Wage Gap"

From Time Magazine:

"According to a new analysis of 2,000 communities by a market research company, in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., young women's median full-time salaries are 8% higher than those of the guys in their peer group. In two cities, Atlanta and Memphis, those women are making around 20% more. This squares with earlier research from Queens College, New York, that had suggested that this was happening in major metropoles. But the new study suggests that the gap is bigger than thought, with young women in New York City, Los Angeles and San Diego making 17%, 12% and 15% more than their male peers respectively. And it also holds true even in reasonably small cities like Raleigh Durham, N.C., Charlotte, N.C., (both 14% more) and Jacksonville, Florida (6%).

Here's the slightly deflating caveat: this reverse gender gap, as it's known, applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities."

MP: In other words, if you control for all of the important variables that contribute to wage differentials (age, marital status, having children, etc.), i.e. impose ceteris paribus conditions, there is no evidence of gender discrimination, and either there is no statistically significant wage gap, or now there's a wage gap in favor of women. 


At 9/01/2010 9:29 AM, Blogger bob wright said...


For clarity, your comment said "there is no significant evidence of gender discrimination."

So, is there any evidence or insignificant evidence of gender discrimination?

At 9/01/2010 9:55 AM, Blogger Anonymous Bosh said...

But... but... but... DISCRIMINATION! It's all AROUND us!!

But seriously: Freakin' DUH!

It's almost as if you are saying that, as time passes, women make.... CHOICES, some of which may result in lower pay (in exchange for something else--family, flexibility, comfort).

*Sigh* Good luck promoting this thinking you sexist probably-racist HATER!

BTW: Here is a good sign of discrimination for you: the CEO of my firm is male! That's right, MALE! It does not matter that the $enior mgmt chain of command, i.e., my boss, my boss's boss, and my boss's boss' boss are all female, no sirree, 'cuz the CEO be MALE!

But I digress...

The average man is stupider than the average woman. Who else would work in construction? In a coal mine? Who else would take whatever pay they make to work in a nuclear facility?! Only dunderheads. Frankly, the so-called and ephemeral "gender wage gap" is, in my opinion (given the crappy jobs that so many men--and so often ONLY men--will take and take with idiot chump PRIDE) ain't bige e-NUFF.

Whew. Hit a nerve there, I think.

At 9/01/2010 9:57 AM, Blogger Anonymous Bosh said...

On a more serious (but similarly futile) note: Why isn't NOW nigh on trumpeting this triumph, pray tell?

At 9/01/2010 10:04 AM, Blogger juandos said...

Funny how Time mag doesn't indicate whether the women are worth the extra money they're getting paid...

So do the women bring something extra to the work place or is it just political correctness run amuck?

Note the following from ManPower: Welders, electricians and other skilled tradespeople are hard to find
when and where they are needed. Their work can’t be offshored,
but they can be onshored

At 9/01/2010 10:56 AM, Blogger Buddy R Pacifico said...

This wage gap probaly reflects the great weight that government has on the economy. Overall, government job wages have not declined as compared to the private sector. The health care sector of the economy is thriving thanks to immense government subsisidies. Well educated women are the biggest beneficiaries.

According to this recent CD post women dominate grad school enrollment in Public Adminstration (74.5%) and Health Sciences (79.9%) Prof. Perry noted women dominate 7 of 10 grad fields and are moving up in the other three.

Does anyone think that Democrat candidates will be campaigning to reverse this gap this fall?

At 9/01/2010 11:23 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"This wage gap probaly reflects the great weight that government has on the economy. Overall, government job wages have not declined as compared to the private sector"...


Oh man! Its obvious now that you mention Buddy...

Thanks for that...

At 9/01/2010 11:41 AM, Blogger Benjamin Cole said...

There have been a few times in life I have applied for a job, got into the final interview process, and lost out. It is odd how many times I lost out to a good-looking woman.

At 9/01/2010 12:07 PM, Blogger Buddy R Pacifico said...

Juandos, "Doh",, thanks.

At 9/01/2010 1:09 PM, Blogger Jet Beagle said...

It should be no surprise that young women in Atlanta and Memphis earn more than young men. African-Americans make up more than 50% of the population in each. A significant proportion of black males - I've seen the number as high as 17% - have been convicted of felonies. Felony records severely harm a person's economic prospects.

In a 2004 paper, Stephen Raphael, University of California, Berkeley, explained the situation facing many black males:

"To summarize, the paper has demonstrated that

• the current incarceration rates of black men are extraordinarily high by historical comparison especially for less-educated and relatively young black men,

• the proportion of black men ever having served time is even higher,

• prison time substantially interrupts the potential work careers in the legitimate labor market of young felons, and

• employers are extremely reluctant to hire applicants who have served time in state or federal prison."

At 9/01/2010 1:23 PM, Blogger juandos said...

Yep Buddy, you have me figured with your link!!

That was me to a "T" after listening to Obama's speech last night...:-)

At 9/01/2010 1:40 PM, Blogger Mark J. Perry said...


Sure, you could have a regression analysis that shows that women make less than men, possibly due to discrimination, but the difference in pay could be statistically insignificant at the 10% level (but NOT significant at the 1% level or 5% level).

Or you could find that women make 20% less than men on average, but 75% of that difference is explained by hours worked, experience, etc. and the other 25% is unexplained, and could be caused by discrimination.

At 9/01/2010 5:29 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

As a woman, I have a hard time believing that there is widespread discrimination.

Sure, I've run across bosses and institutions that liked to pay women less because they are women. But, the labour market is very competitive now and there is always someone willing to buy your labour for more if it's worth more.

Women in general are far less likely to leave a job where they think they are underpaid and they are less aggressive in negotiating compensation. Is that really the fault of the employer? I don't think so.

At 9/03/2010 3:14 AM, Blogger Whiskey said...

What you'll get with women earning HIGHER than their male peers among young professionals in urban centers, is men turning to variations of "Game" (ala Mystery and Roissy) and general ass-holery. Since being a jerk and an asshole is a sure fire way to attract women (if you do it the correct way).

Obnoxiousness, arrogance, status-displaying, hyper-macho attitudes are coming, with a vengeance, to America's White Middle and Upper Middle Class. Because that's the ticket to sex and a relationship.

Latin men generally lacked as a provider, so made up for that shortcoming by ... Macho. Which works. Anglo-Saxon men (and other Northern Europeans) had their macho suppressed by the Protestant work ethic, and the suppression of women's status that was always slightly lower than men's. Hence Beta Male providers.

Stick a fork in it, its done. Prepare for Latin American style macho. Its the only way to compete.


Post a Comment

<< Home