2 ms·
> This association is explained by two dominant views: devaluation and queuing. The [former] argues that the proportion of females in an occupation affects pay,
by throwaway894345 5y ago
> This association is explained by two dominant views: devaluation and queuing. The [former] argues that the proportion of females in an occupation affects pay, owing to devaluation of work done by women. The [latter] views the pay offered in an occupation to affect its female proportion, due to employers’ preference for men–a gendered labor queue
These both seem like unlikely possibilities to me, as they assume salaries are principally determined by the whims of employers rather than market forces (a job will likely pay more if it has the potential to earn the company a lot of money and for which the pool of qualified candidates is small). Kindergarten education doesn't pay poorly because most Kindergarten teachers are women, but rather because there's not a lot of money to be made in Kindergarten education but there are lots of people who want to be Kindergarten teachers.
- mcguire 5y agoIs there anything that would convince you? I mean, the paper is saying that, as more women move into an occupation, pay for that occupation goes down.
- throwaway894345 5y agoIs that causal, or do more women go into the profession because the profession changes (it becomes less valuable and/or more flexible and thus more appealing to women in aggregate)? Also, I could be convinced that discriminatory attitudes contributed strongly prior to say, 1990, but I think it would be a mistake to believe that to extrapolate that to today (particularly considering how much more “cost-optimized” our workplaces have become). If the paper does demonstrate a causal relationship, I would probably have to revisit my priors. I’d need to spend more time with it though, these studies are often subject to errors (e.g., Goldin’s groundbreaking study on sex discrimination in orchestras).