5 ms·

This is good, but is easily explained by the reflected percentages with various doctor specialties. What's the technology equivalent?

by tabeth 9y ago

jotux 9y ago
I think it's better to compare whole labor subgroups: [1] Computer and mathematical occupations (engineers, programmers, etc): > 4,804k jobs, $78k median, 25.5% women, 7% projected growth [2] Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations (doctors, nurses, technicians): > 9,141k jobs, $63k median, 75.0% women, 18% projected growth If we imagine the ideal scenario of employment across all jobs being 50/50 men/women then we need to add 2.3 million women to tech and 4.5 million men to healthcare. Arguably, the lack of men entering the healthcare field (good-paying jobs, growing need) is at least as important as the lack of women entering technology, but why do we constantly talk about getting more women in to tech but not men in to healthcare? [1] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/home.htm https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/home.htm [2] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/home.htm https://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/home.ht... [3] Percent women info: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm
- tabeth 9y ago
  > why do we constantly talk about getting more women in to tech but not men in to healthcare? Who is we? HN? If so, the answer to that is obvious. Your comparison needs more nuance, in my view. If health care had 100 people, 80 nurses (70% of which are women) and 20 doctors (10% of which are women) then you'd have a breakdown like the following: Women: 56 nurses, 2 doctors Men: 24 nurses, 18 doctors If you said the median doctor has a salary of 200K and a nurse 65k, men are paid 5160K and women are paid 4040K. In other words men are paid 56% of the total healthcare salary despite only representing 42% of the workforce. So despite the majority of health care professionals being women, men are still overrepresented in terms of salary, and in a way, influence. This example obviously uses fake numbers, but is the crux of the problem. Money allocation is more accurate than job allocation imo. Moreover, if you were to total men's salaries/wealth and compare it to women's wealth it would be overwhelming in favor of men. Discussions surrounding specific job types and their gender allocation are irrelevant and a distraction. If men and women represented the same amount of total wealth in the US I think these discussions would be more meaningful, but the disparity in wealth is reflected influence and consequently opportunity. So, yeah, more men will be reflected with higher percentages of the higher income opportunities. This is reflected in the BLS data: Employees vs. Managers Nurses vs. Doctors Teachers vs. School Administrators Business owners etc. etc. The issue has never been that men have more of the jobs. The issue is that men have all of the money. That's why people are talking about tech, and say, not education. The job discussion (particularly within tech) is just a way to attempt to solve a tiny aspect of the problem.

This is good, but is easily explained by the reflected percentages with various doctor specialties. What's the technology equivalent?

by tabeth 9y ago

This is good, but is easily explained by the reflected percentages with various doctor specialties. What's the technology equivalent?

jotux 9y ago

I think it's better to compare whole labor subgroups: [1] Computer and mathematical occupations (engineers, programmers, etc): > 4,804k jobs, $78k median, 25.5% women, 7% projected growth [2] Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations (doctors, nurses, technicians): > 9,141k jobs, $63k median, 75.0% women, 18% projected growth If we imagine the ideal scenario of employment across all jobs being 50/50 men/women then we need to add 2.3 million women to tech and 4.5 million men to healthcare. Arguably, the lack of men entering the healthcare field (good-paying jobs, growing need) is at least as important as the lack of women entering technology, but why do we constantly talk about getting more women in to tech but not men in to healthcare? [1] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/home.htm https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/home.htm [2] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/home.htm https://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/home.ht... [3] Percent women info: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm

tabeth 9y ago
> why do we constantly talk about getting more women in to tech but not men in to healthcare? Who is we? HN? If so, the answer to that is obvious. Your comparison needs more nuance, in my view. If health care had 100 people, 80 nurses (70% of which are women) and 20 doctors (10% of which are women) then you'd have a breakdown like the following: Women: 56 nurses, 2 doctors Men: 24 nurses, 18 doctors If you said the median doctor has a salary of 200K and a nurse 65k, men are paid 5160K and women are paid 4040K. In other words men are paid 56% of the total healthcare salary despite only representing 42% of the workforce. So despite the majority of health care professionals being women, men are still overrepresented in terms of salary, and in a way, influence. This example obviously uses fake numbers, but is the crux of the problem. Money allocation is more accurate than job allocation imo. Moreover, if you were to total men's salaries/wealth and compare it to women's wealth it would be overwhelming in favor of men. Discussions surrounding specific job types and their gender allocation are irrelevant and a distraction. If men and women represented the same amount of total wealth in the US I think these discussions would be more meaningful, but the disparity in wealth is reflected influence and consequently opportunity. So, yeah, more men will be reflected with higher percentages of the higher income opportunities. This is reflected in the BLS data: Employees vs. Managers Nurses vs. Doctors Teachers vs. School Administrators Business owners etc. etc. The issue has never been that men have more of the jobs. The issue is that men have all of the money. That's why people are talking about tech, and say, not education. The job discussion (particularly within tech) is just a way to attempt to solve a tiny aspect of the problem.