7 ms·

Positive labor sorting has been increasing for men in the last several decades

40 points by atticora 3y ago

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Geisterde 3y ago
While harboring no love for the fed or their constituent parts, sometimes their articles are factually accurate. Presently then, the only issue here is that we have an economy overfinancialized amongst large amounts of debt, where successful men are too often those who are most efficient at procuring government guarentees.
- woooooo 3y ago
  The article makes no argument for or against the level of financialization and debt in the economy, I think you may be bringing some preconceptions. Highest wage firms have to be faang, by number of employees right? Private equity and top legal positions being fewer.
  - Geisterde 3y ago
    While ill admit I was popping off without cause last night, I think you are glossing over a few glaring examples. The entire military industrial complex is plagued by this behavior; despite spending more than the next several countries combined and invading several countries to protect "american interests", the world is a less safe place for americans than it was in the 90s, and we have managed to discard a 20 year lead in military technology for a 5 year disadvantage to international competitors. Institutional atrophy is on full display in the auto industry, which along with the airlines fit the criteria of zombie companies, neither are interested in innovation anymore because their market positions are guarenteed by government regulation and the promise of bailouts. Lastly, the most successful at political maneuvering often end up in government themselves, trading the stocks of companies they themselves are regulating, collecting royalties for drugs they approve, enjoying handsomely paying speaking gigs in exchange for their decades of service to their doners. Yes, then there is tech, and it often does prove to pay the best for high skilled work like software development, and thats great. Lets not forget before google, samsung, and microsoft had cloud storage, there was another semi-popular cloud storage company whos owner was raided and placed on house arrest for years. Nor should we forget that companies like twitter were taking government bribes to engage in censorship. Its not like everything thats happened in tech has been a product of the free market, there is quite a bit of government help thats helped solidify the market dominance of certain tech companies.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
eevilspock 3y ago
"Positive" refers to positive correlation, not positive effects or desirability. Those that believe that "high-ability workers" made themselves, that market valuation of a person is fair and reflects what that person deserves, will also view this positive correlation as positive. Those that see otherwise, e.g. that grok the Matthew Effect[1], systemic prejudice in society, that no human created themselves, or that humans should not be "priced" like commodities, will not. As the paper points out: There is sorting everywhere in the economy: - Wealthier, more educated, more attractive men on average marry wealthier, more educated, more attractive women. - Higher-income households reside in distinct neighborhoods and send their children to better schools than low-income households. - Elite universities enroll the most qualified undergraduates. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect
- causality0 3y ago
  Those that see otherwise, e.g. that grok the Matthew Effect[1], systemic prejudice in society, that no human created themselves, or that humans should not be "priced" like commodities, will not. Even believing those things, why would you not still see it as positive? Would it be better if high-performing people worked for lower-performing companies? Wouldn't an inability for higher-performing workers to move to higher-performing companies reflect a lack of worker freedom?
  - ako 3y ago
    Because it’s unfair, most of what determines if a person can become a high performing worker is determined by luck outside the control of this person. I’m currently on a work trip in India, and it’s very obvious how much luck determines your life.
    - BobbyJo 3y ago
      I'm on your side generally, but something to keep in mind: the belief that it is not luck generates a ton of value and material security for humanity.
unixbeard1337 3y ago
Sorting went up for men but down for women? I'm not sure I want to start a DEI fight but I'm also not sure I can think of another answer. EDIT: part time work, apparently.
Racing0461 3y ago
> Sorting and Wage Inequality: Stronger sorting contributes to wage inequality. High-skill workers employed by highly productive firms tend to earn substantially more, while low-skilled workers at less productive firms earn less. This is not wage inequality because these are not equal things. More productive employees are not equal to less productive ones. Productive men are not equal to less productive (article's words not mien) women. If 2 different things are not equal, then there is no inequality. > Therefore, stronger sorting contributes to widening the gap between high and low earners. The gap between labor and labor is insignificant compared to the gap between labor and capital.
- BirdieNZ 3y ago
  > This is not wage inequality because these are not equal things. More productive employees are not equal to less productive ones. Productive men are not equal to less productive (article's words not mien) women. If 2 different things are not equal, then there is no inequality. The paper is saying that higher-earning men are more likely to work for companies which pay higher wages (to all their employees). Put another way, 100 men who are equally high-earning across their work experience are not randomly distributed in high- and low- wage companies, but are more concentrated in high-wage companies. In the HN context, maybe it makes sense to say "higher-earning men are more likely to get jobs at FAANG rather than earn the same amount at Microsoft/some non-OpenAI startup/a bank".
  - Racing0461 3y ago
    Microsoft catching strays.
not2b 3y ago
Papers like this miss so much. There are so many other factors that can cause workers with the same abilities to wind up with very different salaries. Some workers might not be able to move to accept a better position so they wind up stuck in a lower paying job. Some are better at negotiation. Some have nepotistic connections to their employers, or got into the right old-boy network in college, so they are overpaid. Some lack self-confidence to ask for what they are worth, so since employers don't pay more than they need to, they don't get it. But too many economics papers just assume a rational market and a manageable number of possible variables and that anything else is noise that can be ignored.
- atoav 3y ago
  As an educator in every course I ever gave it was women who where all shy about bragging they could do a thing that they did for years, while men who watched a single YouTube-video on the issue acted as if they were top experts on the field. E.g. girl who single handedly run light shows at a club for years wouldn't say she knows a lot about the technology, while a guy who once connected an LED stripe would say he does. And it always turns out that the girl knows more. Guys are just better at convincing themselves (and by extension: others) they can do a thing when they can't — and people who can do more things get more money. But from an employers perspective you loose out if you don't see theough that.
  - iinnPP 3y ago
    You know, the boys who don't brag are harder to notice in the sea of testosterone. This is one of the reasons that prejudice is so unintelligent and problematic. There's simply zero chance that you didn't have a single male student who could outcompete a female student at least once in any topic. Your eyes were ignorant with prejudice.
    - Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
      I think his point wasn't that women were always better, but that a lot times he saw men having a higher confidence-to-ability ratio then women. As with most generalizations, this isn't true every time.
scythe 3y ago
Isn't this really a new perspective on something that economists have been saying for years now? Specifically: the economy has been growing for high-skilled workers and dysfunctional for low-skilled workers. Alternatively, the economy has been unable to efficiently incorporate the efforts of less skilled men. It's nice to have some data, but we still don't know what to do.
belorn 3y ago
Any study looking at labor sorting need to acknowledge that wages are not the only attribute which people (and employers) selects for. Wages are nice in terms of getting statistics since it is public record, but the conclusion is limited to asking more simplistic questions: Based on the average wage of a persons lifetime, how close will each job a person take be to that expected wage, assuming it is adjusted for time and inflation. Same question for the employer in terms of what they pay employees.

40 points by atticora 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

While harboring no love for the fed or their constituent parts, sometimes their articles are factually accurate. Presently then, the only issue here is that we have an economy overfinancialized amongst large amounts of debt, where successful men are too often those who are most efficient at procuring government guarentees.

woooooo 3y ago
The article makes no argument for or against the level of financialization and debt in the economy, I think you may be bringing some preconceptions. Highest wage firms have to be faang, by number of employees right? Private equity and top legal positions being fewer.
- Geisterde 3y ago
  While ill admit I was popping off without cause last night, I think you are glossing over a few glaring examples. The entire military industrial complex is plagued by this behavior; despite spending more than the next several countries combined and invading several countries to protect "american interests", the world is a less safe place for americans than it was in the 90s, and we have managed to discard a 20 year lead in military technology for a 5 year disadvantage to international competitors. Institutional atrophy is on full display in the auto industry, which along with the airlines fit the criteria of zombie companies, neither are interested in innovation anymore because their market positions are guarenteed by government regulation and the promise of bailouts. Lastly, the most successful at political maneuvering often end up in government themselves, trading the stocks of companies they themselves are regulating, collecting royalties for drugs they approve, enjoying handsomely paying speaking gigs in exchange for their decades of service to their doners. Yes, then there is tech, and it often does prove to pay the best for high skilled work like software development, and thats great. Lets not forget before google, samsung, and microsoft had cloud storage, there was another semi-popular cloud storage company whos owner was raided and placed on house arrest for years. Nor should we forget that companies like twitter were taking government bribes to engage in censorship. Its not like everything thats happened in tech has been a product of the free market, there is quite a bit of government help thats helped solidify the market dominance of certain tech companies.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

eevilspock 3y ago

"Positive" refers to positive correlation, not positive effects or desirability. Those that believe that "high-ability workers" made themselves, that market valuation of a person is fair and reflects what that person deserves, will also view this positive correlation as positive. Those that see otherwise, e.g. that grok the Matthew Effect[1], systemic prejudice in society, that no human created themselves, or that humans should not be "priced" like commodities, will not. As the paper points out: There is sorting everywhere in the economy: - Wealthier, more educated, more attractive men on average marry wealthier, more educated, more attractive women. - Higher-income households reside in distinct neighborhoods and send their children to better schools than low-income households. - Elite universities enroll the most qualified undergraduates. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect

causality0 3y ago
Those that see otherwise, e.g. that grok the Matthew Effect[1], systemic prejudice in society, that no human created themselves, or that humans should not be "priced" like commodities, will not. Even believing those things, why would you not still see it as positive? Would it be better if high-performing people worked for lower-performing companies? Wouldn't an inability for higher-performing workers to move to higher-performing companies reflect a lack of worker freedom?
- ako 3y ago
  Because it’s unfair, most of what determines if a person can become a high performing worker is determined by luck outside the control of this person. I’m currently on a work trip in India, and it’s very obvious how much luck determines your life.
  - BobbyJo 3y ago
    I'm on your side generally, but something to keep in mind: the belief that it is not luck generates a ton of value and material security for humanity.

unixbeard1337 3y ago

Sorting went up for men but down for women? I'm not sure I want to start a DEI fight but I'm also not sure I can think of another answer. EDIT: part time work, apparently.

Racing0461 3y ago

> Sorting and Wage Inequality: Stronger sorting contributes to wage inequality. High-skill workers employed by highly productive firms tend to earn substantially more, while low-skilled workers at less productive firms earn less. This is not wage inequality because these are not equal things. More productive employees are not equal to less productive ones. Productive men are not equal to less productive (article's words not mien) women. If 2 different things are not equal, then there is no inequality. > Therefore, stronger sorting contributes to widening the gap between high and low earners. The gap between labor and labor is insignificant compared to the gap between labor and capital.

BirdieNZ 3y ago
> This is not wage inequality because these are not equal things. More productive employees are not equal to less productive ones. Productive men are not equal to less productive (article's words not mien) women. If 2 different things are not equal, then there is no inequality. The paper is saying that higher-earning men are more likely to work for companies which pay higher wages (to all their employees). Put another way, 100 men who are equally high-earning across their work experience are not randomly distributed in high- and low- wage companies, but are more concentrated in high-wage companies. In the HN context, maybe it makes sense to say "higher-earning men are more likely to get jobs at FAANG rather than earn the same amount at Microsoft/some non-OpenAI startup/a bank".
- Racing0461 3y ago
  Microsoft catching strays.

not2b 3y ago

Papers like this miss so much. There are so many other factors that can cause workers with the same abilities to wind up with very different salaries. Some workers might not be able to move to accept a better position so they wind up stuck in a lower paying job. Some are better at negotiation. Some have nepotistic connections to their employers, or got into the right old-boy network in college, so they are overpaid. Some lack self-confidence to ask for what they are worth, so since employers don't pay more than they need to, they don't get it. But too many economics papers just assume a rational market and a manageable number of possible variables and that anything else is noise that can be ignored.

atoav 3y ago
As an educator in every course I ever gave it was women who where all shy about bragging they could do a thing that they did for years, while men who watched a single YouTube-video on the issue acted as if they were top experts on the field. E.g. girl who single handedly run light shows at a club for years wouldn't say she knows a lot about the technology, while a guy who once connected an LED stripe would say he does. And it always turns out that the girl knows more. Guys are just better at convincing themselves (and by extension: others) they can do a thing when they can't — and people who can do more things get more money. But from an employers perspective you loose out if you don't see theough that.
- iinnPP 3y ago
  You know, the boys who don't brag are harder to notice in the sea of testosterone. This is one of the reasons that prejudice is so unintelligent and problematic. There's simply zero chance that you didn't have a single male student who could outcompete a female student at least once in any topic. Your eyes were ignorant with prejudice.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
    I think his point wasn't that women were always better, but that a lot times he saw men having a higher confidence-to-ability ratio then women. As with most generalizations, this isn't true every time.

scythe 3y ago

Isn't this really a new perspective on something that economists have been saying for years now? Specifically: the economy has been growing for high-skilled workers and dysfunctional for low-skilled workers. Alternatively, the economy has been unable to efficiently incorporate the efforts of less skilled men. It's nice to have some data, but we still don't know what to do.

belorn 3y ago

Any study looking at labor sorting need to acknowledge that wages are not the only attribute which people (and employers) selects for. Wages are nice in terms of getting statistics since it is public record, but the conclusion is limited to asking more simplistic questions: Based on the average wage of a persons lifetime, how close will each job a person take be to that expected wage, assuming it is adjusted for time and inflation. Same question for the employer in terms of what they pay employees.