3 ms·

> the lifetime earnings gains are channeled entirely through higher hourly wages and occur despite earlier-than-average retirement for persistently unionized me

> the lifetime earnings gains are channeled entirely through higher hourly wages and occur despite earlier-than-average retirement for persistently unionized men. Odd phrasing, is the study only accounting for male subjects? I'm confused by this, because women and non-binary folk have been allowed in unions since women's liberation unfolded in the 1960s.

boomboomsubban 4y ago
I can't read the article either but the abstract says "using a sample of men."
- klyrs 4y ago
  > saua says? (if you delete your response in the next hour I can do the same)
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    Yes, phone BS. I edited it now.
bergenty 4y ago
Non-binary is barely a thing now, why would you throw it in there with women?
SiempreViernes 4y ago
Yes: > We must, unfortunately, restrict our sample to men for both practical and substantive reasons. Most centrally, the large majority of female earners are categorized as “spouse” in the PSID, and spouse union membership only began to be collected consistently in 1979. We thus cannot measure union membership for approximately a quarter of the potential career span for women. > Furthermore, we run into multilayered selectivity issues for female employment and unionization in the cohort under study. In 1969, fewer than half of prime-aged women participated in the labor market. Many women in this cohort also faced significant normative pressure and discrimination following childbirth to remain at home, resulting in larger proportions of women in this cohort exiting the labor market (Goldin and Mitchell 2017). Labor unions in this period were male-dominated and had sexist practices of recruitment and upward advancement, particularly among the membership core and leadership structure (Lichenstein 2012). As a result, unionized women working in consistent, full-time employment were a select group overcoming a vast institutional system of gender discrimination, biasing comparisons that can be made across non-union and non-working women.

boomboomsubban 4y ago

I can't read the article either but the abstract says "using a sample of men."

klyrs 4y ago
> saua says? (if you delete your response in the next hour I can do the same)
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  Yes, phone BS. I edited it now.

bergenty 4y ago

Non-binary is barely a thing now, why would you throw it in there with women?

SiempreViernes 4y ago

Yes: > We must, unfortunately, restrict our sample to men for both practical and substantive reasons. Most centrally, the large majority of female earners are categorized as “spouse” in the PSID, and spouse union membership only began to be collected consistently in 1979. We thus cannot measure union membership for approximately a quarter of the potential career span for women. > Furthermore, we run into multilayered selectivity issues for female employment and unionization in the cohort under study. In 1969, fewer than half of prime-aged women participated in the labor market. Many women in this cohort also faced significant normative pressure and discrimination following childbirth to remain at home, resulting in larger proportions of women in this cohort exiting the labor market (Goldin and Mitchell 2017). Labor unions in this period were male-dominated and had sexist practices of recruitment and upward advancement, particularly among the membership core and leadership structure (Lichenstein 2012). As a result, unionized women working in consistent, full-time employment were a select group overcoming a vast institutional system of gender discrimination, biasing comparisons that can be made across non-union and non-working women.