27 ms·

> Males and females have different preferences on average, and do from birth[1]. This is not a bad thing. Sure, but it seems more than a little convenient that

> Males and females have different preferences on average, and do from birth[1]. This is not a bad thing. Sure, but it seems more than a little convenient that the male-chosen professions seem to generally pay significantly more, on average, than the female-chosen ones. Haven't there been studies that showed that women moving into a profession was actually associated with pay dropping?

jimbokun 7y ago
Are we talking about programming, specifically? Programmers are paid relatively well because 1. Software is "eating the world", so a lot of software is being written leading to demand for programmers. 2. Programming scales really well. Software has zero reproduction cost and can reach a global audience almost instantaneously. So software companies can make a lot of money with relatively few employees. What would be the mechanism for pay dropping when women enter a profession? Some global masterminds reducing pay across multiple corporations across the board when they find out women are being hired in that industry? Maybe it's just a matter of a sudden increase of supply of workers as women enter a field to meet the existing demand, driving wages down? Is it because the women are being paid less, while the men are being paid the same as before?
- freeone3000 7y ago
  It's because women are getting paid less, promoted later, and have lower bonuses.
- TulliusCicero 7y ago
  > Some global masterminds reducing pay across multiple corporations across the board when they find out women are being hired in that industry? No coordination is necessary. People will simply start to view the role as less valuable or skilled due to more women being in it.
Thorentis 7y ago
Men in general, are more aggressive and assertive when it comes to pay increases. If a male dominated industry has sustained pay increases year on year, this is probably why. Over time, female dominated professions have wages that do not increase at the same rate.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  "Men in general, are more aggressive and assertive when it comes to pay increases." Isn't there a study that said women ask for pay raises at the same rate as men, but they are granted them less often?
  - Thorentis 7y ago
    The way you ask can be just as important as asking. Hence, my comment.
    - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
      Isn't there another study that said that women were punished for being aggressive like a male in the form of lower performance reviews?
      - Thorentis 7y ago
        Consider the reverse. A female boss, and a male being aggressive in wanting a pay rise. How do you think she would respond? Or even just consider a woman going to another woman for a pay rise. Do you think being more aggressive would work or not?
      - pluto9 7y ago
        Surely it would be more productive to actually link the studies than repeatedly post this rhetorical question.
- TulliusCicero 7y ago
  And women are punished for demanding pay increases, so they can't win either way.
tropo 7y ago
It's not some conspiracy to pay women less. It works like this: 1. More people (women in this case) enter the profession. 2. Due to increased labor supply, pay starts to drop. 3. Men, placing a relatively higher priority on high pay, begin to avoid the profession. That last point is sort of interesting. Men are strongly associated with their careers and level of pay. This is most of their status. It has a tremendous impact in the dating market. It is a key factor in the likelihood of divorce. Men follow the money; they don't get randomly assigned careers and they don't just follow their dreams. Men strongly seek the status of a high-paid job. To marry and start a family, that job is almost required. Women have no such trouble, so they don't need to prioritize earnings. Women can pick careers they actually enjoy.
- naasking 7y ago
  > 2. Due to increased labor supply, pay starts to drop. While this is plausible, the data on this isn't consistent. In fact, some professions that saw a large influx of women also saw wage increases. There are many variables at play.
Reedx 7y ago
The other responses covered some reasons for this, but also men tend to accept more risk, more willing to devote their life to work or have a myopic focus. Again, less sane one could argue. It's a less balanced life. Men hit the extremes more often and as a result occupy more of the outlier positions. They're also over represented at the bottom of the ladder. i.e., the homeless and prison populations. But I don't see anyone claiming it's a conspiracy that men over represent this end of the spectrum.
ajro 7y ago
And the so called 'male-chosen' professions generally have higher risk of serious health consequences, injuries or death.
- TulliusCicero 7y ago
  It's true that men tend to hold more of the physically dangerous professions, but the ones well known for being high paying, like software engineering or finance, generally don't fit that model.
  - ajro 7y ago
    If we talk about gender equality why take into consideration only part of the picture not a whole? Is it fair?
chongli 7y ago
more than a little convenient that the male-chosen professions seem to generally pay significantly more It’s not a coincidence at all. Men place a higher priority on pay to the exclusion of all else, when choosing a career, than do women. Women are much more likely to choose careers with flexible working hours, benefits, and the potential to help other people (positive externalities). When you look at it this way, it makes more sense that you’ll find men occupying all these different high paying positions. It makes a lot less sense that every employer deliberately pays less for women-dominated positions just because there are women there.
- octokatt 7y ago
  Given women are usually called upon to take more time to do unpaid labor like child-rearing, elder care, and holiday preparation, the fact women choose a flexible schedule is a result of societal expectations, and should be ruled out as a causal link. Because, on average, men are given a lot less social pressure to "be there", they can more often take high-pressure jobs. Then the high pressure becomes a status symbol, and a gate to keep people with higher social obligations out. As this phenomenon also causes a ton of burnout and is a cause for men's shorter lifespans, the whole thing needs to be actively taken down.
  - chongli 7y ago
    Women aren't just "called upon" to do child rearing, it's a huge part of their biology. In addition to giving birth and developing a strong maternal bond, women breastfeed their children which is not as convenient at work. And as for high-powered careers being a status symbol, I would offer that a man's socioeconomic status is a major component in attraction for women. The reverse is true to far less of an extent. The stats on dating apps bear this out.
hiram112 7y ago
> Sure, but it seems more than a little convenient that the male-chosen professions seem to generally pay significantly more, on average, than the female-chosen ones. They don't. Most men have to work in order to earn money and attract a partner. You think all of us love sitting in open offices, following our Scrum Master? Of course not, we just don't have the luxury, as do women, to follow our 'passions' in lower paying jobs. We can't marry a breadwinner too easily. We don't receive subsidies from the state, unlike women who are a net tax loss. We aren't able to attract a mate simply by being young, as can women, due to biological differences between genders. In Scandinavia, where salaries are progressively taxed and women have tons of opportunity to do what they want, women still choose not to sit in front of computers all day. Why the hell would they if everyone's salary is essentially equalized, regardless of whether you're a part-time teacher, social worker or a talented computer engineer working 60/hours a week. All salaries are taxed down to a median $75K / year, with the same health insurance, subsidized parental leave, etc. Thus, Scandinavian women follow their 'passions' which is what most Western women do, as we see from their choices in college majors, all of which are unarguably 'easier' but pay less. If society were to equalize my salary at $75K year whether I coded all day or worked for a charity or NGO or a music teacher or artist or actor, I'd dump my programming job as fast as I could. Look at India or China where far more women are into computers - they don't have the luxury of following their passion in dance or writing, because they don't have as much PRIVILEGE in their societies as do women in the West. * http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/25/average-iq-of-students-by-college-major-and-gender-ratio/ http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/25/average-iq-of-students...
- _lacroix 7y ago
  > We don't receive subsidies from the state, unlike women who are a net tax loss. Source for this? I've never heard this claim before and on the surface it makes no sense. I'm a woman and I don't get any kind of special tax exemptions for it...
  - hiram112 7y ago
    I'm looking at things in aggregate. The main idea is that men earn more, taxes are progressive, thus men pay more in federal and state income taxes than women, and women receive more benefits than men. The tax revenue point can be proven by the same 'wage gap' arguments which are true in the sense that men work more and are paid higher, in aggregate, so pay more income taxes. Second idea is that most federal and state benefits that are direct subsidies go to women: TANF, WIC, SNAP, Section 8, etc. Most people (i.e. women) who receive these benefits have children. The biggest difference, can't remember where I saw it, is as our population shifts towards a higher median age, health care (and social security and other things like government pensions) become a larger share of net pay outs. Women live longer and spend more on health care.d. But responding to your own question, no I don't think there are any special exemptions for working women, though it is creeping into US law in many states and soon Federally. Expenses like parental leave will be paid for by all taxpayers but be distributed mostly to women. Obviously, some of these discrepancies are due to child care being a non-paid job, but it isn't the only difference.

jimbokun 7y ago

Are we talking about programming, specifically? Programmers are paid relatively well because 1. Software is "eating the world", so a lot of software is being written leading to demand for programmers. 2. Programming scales really well. Software has zero reproduction cost and can reach a global audience almost instantaneously. So software companies can make a lot of money with relatively few employees. What would be the mechanism for pay dropping when women enter a profession? Some global masterminds reducing pay across multiple corporations across the board when they find out women are being hired in that industry? Maybe it's just a matter of a sudden increase of supply of workers as women enter a field to meet the existing demand, driving wages down? Is it because the women are being paid less, while the men are being paid the same as before?

freeone3000 7y ago
It's because women are getting paid less, promoted later, and have lower bonuses.
TulliusCicero 7y ago
> Some global masterminds reducing pay across multiple corporations across the board when they find out women are being hired in that industry? No coordination is necessary. People will simply start to view the role as less valuable or skilled due to more women being in it.

Thorentis 7y ago

Men in general, are more aggressive and assertive when it comes to pay increases. If a male dominated industry has sustained pay increases year on year, this is probably why. Over time, female dominated professions have wages that do not increase at the same rate.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
"Men in general, are more aggressive and assertive when it comes to pay increases." Isn't there a study that said women ask for pay raises at the same rate as men, but they are granted them less often?
- Thorentis 7y ago
  The way you ask can be just as important as asking. Hence, my comment.
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    Isn't there another study that said that women were punished for being aggressive like a male in the form of lower performance reviews?
    - Thorentis 7y ago
      Consider the reverse. A female boss, and a male being aggressive in wanting a pay rise. How do you think she would respond? Or even just consider a woman going to another woman for a pay rise. Do you think being more aggressive would work or not?
    - pluto9 7y ago
      Surely it would be more productive to actually link the studies than repeatedly post this rhetorical question.
TulliusCicero 7y ago
And women are punished for demanding pay increases, so they can't win either way.

tropo 7y ago

It's not some conspiracy to pay women less. It works like this: 1. More people (women in this case) enter the profession. 2. Due to increased labor supply, pay starts to drop. 3. Men, placing a relatively higher priority on high pay, begin to avoid the profession. That last point is sort of interesting. Men are strongly associated with their careers and level of pay. This is most of their status. It has a tremendous impact in the dating market. It is a key factor in the likelihood of divorce. Men follow the money; they don't get randomly assigned careers and they don't just follow their dreams. Men strongly seek the status of a high-paid job. To marry and start a family, that job is almost required. Women have no such trouble, so they don't need to prioritize earnings. Women can pick careers they actually enjoy.

naasking 7y ago
> 2. Due to increased labor supply, pay starts to drop. While this is plausible, the data on this isn't consistent. In fact, some professions that saw a large influx of women also saw wage increases. There are many variables at play.

Reedx 7y ago

The other responses covered some reasons for this, but also men tend to accept more risk, more willing to devote their life to work or have a myopic focus. Again, less sane one could argue. It's a less balanced life. Men hit the extremes more often and as a result occupy more of the outlier positions. They're also over represented at the bottom of the ladder. i.e., the homeless and prison populations. But I don't see anyone claiming it's a conspiracy that men over represent this end of the spectrum.

ajro 7y ago

And the so called 'male-chosen' professions generally have higher risk of serious health consequences, injuries or death.

TulliusCicero 7y ago
It's true that men tend to hold more of the physically dangerous professions, but the ones well known for being high paying, like software engineering or finance, generally don't fit that model.
- ajro 7y ago
  If we talk about gender equality why take into consideration only part of the picture not a whole? Is it fair?

chongli 7y ago

more than a little convenient that the male-chosen professions seem to generally pay significantly more It’s not a coincidence at all. Men place a higher priority on pay to the exclusion of all else, when choosing a career, than do women. Women are much more likely to choose careers with flexible working hours, benefits, and the potential to help other people (positive externalities). When you look at it this way, it makes more sense that you’ll find men occupying all these different high paying positions. It makes a lot less sense that every employer deliberately pays less for women-dominated positions just because there are women there.

octokatt 7y ago
Given women are usually called upon to take more time to do unpaid labor like child-rearing, elder care, and holiday preparation, the fact women choose a flexible schedule is a result of societal expectations, and should be ruled out as a causal link. Because, on average, men are given a lot less social pressure to "be there", they can more often take high-pressure jobs. Then the high pressure becomes a status symbol, and a gate to keep people with higher social obligations out. As this phenomenon also causes a ton of burnout and is a cause for men's shorter lifespans, the whole thing needs to be actively taken down.
- chongli 7y ago
  Women aren't just "called upon" to do child rearing, it's a huge part of their biology. In addition to giving birth and developing a strong maternal bond, women breastfeed their children which is not as convenient at work. And as for high-powered careers being a status symbol, I would offer that a man's socioeconomic status is a major component in attraction for women. The reverse is true to far less of an extent. The stats on dating apps bear this out.

hiram112 7y ago

> Sure, but it seems more than a little convenient that the male-chosen professions seem to generally pay significantly more, on average, than the female-chosen ones. They don't. Most men have to work in order to earn money and attract a partner. You think all of us love sitting in open offices, following our Scrum Master? Of course not, we just don't have the luxury, as do women, to follow our 'passions' in lower paying jobs. We can't marry a breadwinner too easily. We don't receive subsidies from the state, unlike women who are a net tax loss. We aren't able to attract a mate simply by being young, as can women, due to biological differences between genders. In Scandinavia, where salaries are progressively taxed and women have tons of opportunity to do what they want, women still choose not to sit in front of computers all day. Why the hell would they if everyone's salary is essentially equalized, regardless of whether you're a part-time teacher, social worker or a talented computer engineer working 60/hours a week. All salaries are taxed down to a median $75K / year, with the same health insurance, subsidized parental leave, etc. Thus, Scandinavian women follow their 'passions' which is what most Western women do, as we see from their choices in college majors, all of which are unarguably 'easier' but pay less. If society were to equalize my salary at $75K year whether I coded all day or worked for a charity or NGO or a music teacher or artist or actor, I'd dump my programming job as fast as I could. Look at India or China where far more women are into computers - they don't have the luxury of following their passion in dance or writing, because they don't have as much PRIVILEGE in their societies as do women in the West. * http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/25/average-iq-of-students-by-college-major-and-gender-ratio/ http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/25/average-iq-of-students...

_lacroix 7y ago
> We don't receive subsidies from the state, unlike women who are a net tax loss. Source for this? I've never heard this claim before and on the surface it makes no sense. I'm a woman and I don't get any kind of special tax exemptions for it...
- hiram112 7y ago
  I'm looking at things in aggregate. The main idea is that men earn more, taxes are progressive, thus men pay more in federal and state income taxes than women, and women receive more benefits than men. The tax revenue point can be proven by the same 'wage gap' arguments which are true in the sense that men work more and are paid higher, in aggregate, so pay more income taxes. Second idea is that most federal and state benefits that are direct subsidies go to women: TANF, WIC, SNAP, Section 8, etc. Most people (i.e. women) who receive these benefits have children. The biggest difference, can't remember where I saw it, is as our population shifts towards a higher median age, health care (and social security and other things like government pensions) become a larger share of net pay outs. Women live longer and spend more on health care.d. But responding to your own question, no I don't think there are any special exemptions for working women, though it is creeping into US law in many states and soon Federally. Expenses like parental leave will be paid for by all taxpayers but be distributed mostly to women. Obviously, some of these discrepancies are due to child care being a non-paid job, but it isn't the only difference.