Tag Archives: gender inequality

Obama economic adviser on marriage and the gender gap

Two parts of this interview with Obama economic adviser Betsey Stevensen stood out to me. I’m just surprised to hear such straightforward social science from someone in such a powerful position.

Betsey

This, on marriage and poverty:

What’s your reaction when you hear conservatives talk about marriage as a poverty reduction tool?

My research found that actually, if you want to increase marriage, you need to increase the minimum wage and strengthen the middle class so that people can enjoy the fruits of marriage from those more comfortable positions. I do think that conservatives don’t understand that the dynamics of marriage have changed in such a way that income supports marriage, rather than the marriage supporting having a higher income or supporting getting people out of poverty. There’s also the fact that they seem to really believe that if you push young people to marriage you can alleviate poverty, but then you see enormously high divorce rates, which actually makes things even worse because divorce is very expensive. The big differences in divorce come from, if you’re a 20-year-old high school dropout, you have [approximately] a 60% chance of divorcing within 10 years of marriage, but if you’re a 35-year-old with a college degree, you have [approximately] a 5% chance of divorcing. If what you think is that marriage is important for having a strong middle class, what you do is actually encourage people to wait before settling down.

The conservative view is, we should smush you together, then you’ll have more money, then there’ll be less tension. But actually, when you get two people making $7.25, there’s a lot of tension because you’re both still struggling. That tension leads to family conflict.

And this, on the gender wage gap:

Every time the president comes out and says, women should have equal pay for equal work, you have folks, including economists, come out and say, that’s a misleading number, that’s not for the same job, that’s year-round full-time wages, and a big part of it is women’s choices. What’s your response to that, and what’s a good way to understand these numbers?

When people come out and say that’s not a fair number, well, what really is a fair number? You brought up “women’s choices.” Well, some women’s choices come about because they’re being discriminated against. Some of women’s choices come because they experience sexism. Some of women’s choices come because they are disproportionately balancing the needs of work and family. Which of these choices should we consider legitimate choices, and which of them should we consider things that we have a societal obligation to try to mitigate, to alleviate some of these constraints so that they can make different choices? A lot of people will say things like, let’s control for occupational choices. But the research is showing us that women are choosing occupations which penalize them the least for taking time out of work.

If there was less discrimination, if there was more flexibility in work, you wouldn’t see women necessarily choosing the same occupations. So why should I take the wage gap holding occupation constant? If we change society, we reduce discrimination, we’re not going to hold occupational choice constant – women are going to choose different occupations.

I agree that the 77 cents on the dollar is not all due to discrimination. No one is trying to say that it is. But you have to point to some number in order for people to understand the facts. And what it represents is the fact that women on average are put in situations every day that for a variety of reasons mean they earn less. Much of what we need to do to close that gap is to change the constraints that women face. And there are things we haven’t tried.

I wouldn’t expect Obama to say things like this, but I’m impressed that someone in his near proximity would.

For more, follow the tags for marriage promotion and the gender inequality.

5 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Peak women, labor force participation edition

I had a great visit at the University of Pennsylvania the other day, and gave a talk titled, “What Happened to the Gender Revolution?” It was an elaboration of the op-ed I wrote last fall, in which I sketched out the stall in progress toward gender equality (a recurring theme, not my discovery) and offered some ideas about getting it moving again.

One objection I got during the talk (rather belligerently, from Herbert Smith) was that I was making a big deal out of women’s labor force share peaking at just under half the total, which is a natural place to peak and so we shouldn’t expect it to keep going up.

peak-woman

My first response was that the feminism-has-gone-too-far gang (Hanna Rosin, Kay Hymowitz, Christina Hoff Sommers, etc.) complains as if women’s progress has already shot past 50/50. Although it hasn’t on almost all measures, there’s also no reason why women couldn’t become dominant. Judging from history, one gender dominating the labor market is hardly an impossibility. So women’s labor force share tapering off as it approaches 50% shouldn’t be considered a natural phenomenon.

But second, and for this I blame my presentation, women’s share of the labor force isn’t the best measure because it depends also on men’s labor force participation, too, which has been falling since the 1960s. So maybe it’s best to focus on women’s participation rates instead (it is on this measure that the U.S. has slipped behind many other rich countries).

Here are the labor force participation rates for women by age, education, race/ethnicity, and marital status, from 1962 to 2013, from the Current Population Survey, with men for comparison. The dots show the peak year for each trend (click to enlarge).

wlfp

Women’s overall share of the labor force hit 46% in 1994, and has spent the last 20 years within a point of that (as both men’s and women’s rates fell). But if you look at all these groups it’s clear that doesn’t represent the simple slide of women into the home plate of equality. Every line here rose for decades before hitting a peak between 1996 and 2001. And they peaked at different levels: Women with BA degrees peaked at 85%, Black women peaked at 80%, Hispanic women peaked at 68%. Married women peaked at 75%, single women at 82%. And so on.

Maybe all these trends are not being driven by the same underlying forces. But I’m pretty sure it’s not a complete coincidence.

2 Comments

Filed under Me @ work

Flip that effect: gender gap, returns to education, marriage premium

How we describe the directionality of an effect affects how we think about it. Andrew Gelman complains that the recent paper by Dalton Conley and Emily Rauscher does this. It’s called, “The Effect of Daughters on Partisanship and Social Attitudes Toward Women.” And the news headlines were things like, “Does Having Daughters Make You More Republican?” Ross Douthat called it “The Daughter Theory.”

But of course the finding could just as well be described as the effect of sons on making people more liberal.

In this case it’s a great example of boys being the norm and girls being difference. But there are plenty of examples of when we describe an effect as if its opposite doesn’t exist. Here are three:

The marriage premium. This usually refers to married men earning more than single men. But it is just as much a penalty for being single as it is a reward for being married. In my own work on this I described three possible mechanisms: positive selection into marriage (higher earners marry), productivity-enhancing effects of marriage (wives make men better workers), and discrimination (bosses prefer married men). But all of these could have been expressed in the reverse direction. Lots of “marriage is good” arguments should be turned around to ask, “How could we punish single people less”?

single_alone

The gender gap. President Obama has frequently implied that reducing the gender gap in pay will be good for “middle class families.” Under “Protecting the Middle Class News,” the White House writes that the gender gap “means less for families’ everyday needs, less for investments in our children’s futures, and, when added up over a lifetime of work, substantially less for retirement.” Of course, it also means more for families with employed men. I hate to be a buzzkill on this, but there is no reason to think that reducing gender discrimination just means paying women more. How do we know women are underpaid, instead of men being overpaid?

Returns to education. This one is tricky, because there is a return on investment from education, so it’s reasonable to talk about the effect in that direction: you spend money on education, you get a benefit. But the society that rewards education also penalizes lack of education relatively speaking (unless everyone is equally educated). Nothing against educated people, but to reduce inequality it would be good to reduce the returns to education. For example, raising the minimum wage, or providing government jobs to low-skilled workers, would reduce returns to education (if that is operationalized as the difference between college and non-college wages.

8 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Percent female among bylined New York Times website authors, circa 3 p.m. on December 24, 2013

Now with the Washington Post from the next morning added…

New York Timesnyt-female-writers

The total is 36% female. The segregation score is .42, meaning 42% of men or women would have to switch sections to get an even gender distribution across sections. If that’s what you want.

Washington Post

wapo-female-writers

The total is 32% female and the segregation is .41. The grey couple appears pretty homophilous.

Note: Authors counted as many times as they appeared (e.g., if a piece appeared in more than one section, or they had two pieces in the same section).

2 Comments

Filed under In the news

Gender devaluation, in one comparison

You can divide the reasons women earn less money than men do, on average, into three categories, in declining order or importance:

  1. Working fewer years, weeks, and hours
  2. Working in different occupations
  3. Being paid less in the same occupations

The first has to do with families and children. That has a large voluntary, or at least kind of voluntary, component (or it reflects hiring discrimination, which is hard to prove, prevent or punish under our legal regime). The third is illegal and sometimes actionable, as in the Lilly Ledbetter situation.

The second — occupational segregation — is a difficult hybrid. Segregation reflects both discrimination in hiring and promotions, and socialization-related choices, including in education. And it is wrapped up with divisions that may even be relatively harmless in a separate-but-equal kind of way — that is, not directly harmful, but contributing to the categorical divisions that make gender inequality more intractable. But the different pay in female- versus male-dominated occupations is a problem, well documented (see here and here) but virtually impossible to address under current law.

nurse-truck

Today’s example: nursing assistants versus light truck drivers

The government’s O*Net job classification system provides detailed descriptions of the qualifications, skills, and conditions of hundreds of occupations. The comparison between nursing assistants (1.5 million workers) and light truck or delivery services drivers (.9 million) is instructive for the question of gender composition. Using the 2009-2011 American Community Survey, I figure nursing assistants are 88% female, compared with 6% female for the light truck drivers. Here are some other facts:

  • The nursing assistants are better educated on average, with only 50% having no education beyond high school, compared with 67% of the light truck drivers.
  • But in terms of job skills, they are both in the O*Net “Job Zone Two,” with 3 months to 1 year of training “required by a typical worker to learn the techniques, acquire the information, and develop the facility needed for average performance in a specific job-worker situation.”
  • The O*Net reported median wage for 2012 was $11.74 for nursing assistants, compared with $14.13 for light truck drivers, so nursing assistants earn 83% of light truck drivers’ hourly earnings.

To make a stricter apples-to-apples comparison, I took those workers from the two occupations who fit these narrow criteria in 2009-2011:

  • Age 20-29
  • High school graduate with no further education
  • Employed 50-52 weeks in the previous year, with usual hours of exactly 40 per week
  • Never married, no children

This gave me 748 light truck drivers and 693 nursing assistants, with median annual earnings of $22,564 and $20,000, respectively — the light truck drivers earn 13% more. Why?

The typical argument for heavy truck drivers’ higher pay is that they spend a lot of time on the road away from home. But that’s not the case with the light truck drivers. They are more likely to work longer hours, but I restricted this comparison to 40-hour workers only. Here are comparisons of the O*Net database scores for abilities and conditions of the two jobs. For each I calculated score differences, so the qualities with bars above zero have higher scores for nursing assistants and those with bars below zero have higher scores for light truck drivers. See what you think (click to enlarge the figures). My comments are below.

abilities

context

You can stare at these lists and see which skills should be rewarded more, or which conditions compensated more. Or you could derive some formula based on the pay of the hundreds of occupations, to see which skills or conditions “the market” values more. But you will not be able to divine a fair market value for these differences that doesn’t have gender composition already baked into it. And “the market” doesn’t make this comparison directly, because nursing assistants and light truck drivers generally don’t work for the same employers or hire from the same labor pools. You might see reasons in these lists for why women choose one occupation and men choose the other, but I don’t see how that fairly leads to a pay difference.

The only solution I know of to the problem of unequal pay according to gender composition is government wage scales according to a “comparable worth” scheme (the subject of old books by Joan Acker and Paula England, but not high on the current political agenda). Under our current legal regime no one woman, or class of women, can successfully bring a suit to challenge this disparity.* That means occupational integration might be the best way to break this down.

*One exception to this is the public sector in Minnesota, in which local jurisdictions have their pay structures reviewed at regular intervals for evidence of gender bias, based on the required conditions and abilities of their jobs (as reported by me by Patricia Tanji of the Pay Equity Coalition of Minnesota).

19 Comments

Filed under Research reports

Choose that job?

This is a quick note following up on some posts about the gender gap in pay (like this one on long-hours workers, and this one on the use and abuse of the gender gap statistic).

One of the worst headlines I saw on these subjects was this one from a Time.com post: “The Pay Gap Is Not as Bad as You (and Sheryl Sandberg) Think. [Subhead:] Women don’t make 77 cents to a man’s dollar. They make more like 93 cents, as long as they don’t major in art history.”

I can appreciate a joke, but this just underscores how this debate over job “choice” is going on among the 28% of U.S. adults that have a bachelor’s degree or more. That bias shows up in the telltale use of “profession,” as in Hanna Rosin’s phrase, “Women congregate in different professions than men do, and the largely male professions tend to be higher-paying.” People who are scraping by in dead-end jobs aren’t “congregating in professions.”

In the language of economics, this may be expressed as, “differences in educational attainment, work experience and occupational choice contribute to the gender wage gap.”

Really?

Really?

Many of the critics of my NYTimes op-ed on gender inequality shared the view of “wmdawesrode”:

What about free choice? Nothing holds anyone of whatever gender from pursuing a career in whatever field they prefer.

Occupations

Technically, this comes down to how you handle the issue of occupations in employment data, and transitions between them. In a paper analyzing the job changes of nurses’ aides, Vanesa Ribas, Janet Dill and I found that for 30% of those who left the job, their next job was in an even worse-paid service job.

We looked at nurses’ aides because it is a poorly-paid job, disproportionately female, which employers fret over because of its high turnover rate. But there are hundreds of occupations in the federal statistical system. Some of them reflect career choices made by people with professional options (e.g., “economist” versus “sociologist”). But what about the 3.1 million workers who are “cashiers” versus the 3.1 million workers who are “first-line supervisors/managers of retail sales workers.”? Treating this difference as an occupational choice, rather than as an unequal outcome, is iffy at best.

If you go to the IPUMS archive of Current Population Survey data, you can experiment with this using the “occ” (what is your occupation now?) versus “occly” (what was your occupation last year?) questions. For example, to see what those retail sales supervisors and managers were doing last year, fill out the online analysis window like this:

occoccly

And you will find the major feeder occupations were (in descending order):

For women:

  1. First-line supervisors/managers of non-retail sales workers
  2. Cashiers
  3. Sales representatives, wholesale and manufacturing
  4. Customer service representatives
  5. Food service managers

For men:

  1. First-line supervisors/managers of non-retail sales workers
  2. Sales representatives, wholesale and manufacturing
  3. Marketing and sales managers
  4. Retail salespersons
  5. Driver/sales workers and truck drivers

It looks to me like some of those people were making lateral moves in pursuit of career dreams (e.g., from non-retail to retail sale manager), but for most of them the job is a promotion. (I pooled 10 years of data because the numbers for these are pretty small, since there are so many occupations, and the vast majority of people don’t change jobs each year).

If you look through the list of occupations, many of them reflect hierarchies in vertical career paths. This is empirically observable, but analyzing it systematically requires a creative approach I haven’t figured out (but maybe someone else has).

Of course, a gender disparity in rates of transitioning from cashier to supervisor isn’t necessarily employer discrimination. Some people, for example, have family obligations (“choices”) that make them less dedicated workers and legitimately less desirable for promotion. The gender system is complicated. If fathers are more likely to move out when their children have disabilities, as suggested by data on living arrangements, then single mothers whose children have disabilities might have a tough time giving 110% to their cashier jobs — to get that promotion at Wal-Mart. And then Hanna Rosin would catch them congregating in the less lucrative professions.

 

3 Comments

Filed under Research reports

Op-ed plus: Check the facts edition

Truth-O-Meter

Without making direct comparisons across the several outlets at which I’ve published, I will say that nothing compares with the fact-checking I got at the New York Times for the op-ed published this week. In addition to two careful editors, the piece was thoroughly checked out by Kevin McCarthy (whose name I use with permission). It began with a fully annotated version of the piece, and continued with several rounds of follow-up queries. As far as I can tell he followed up on every one of the factual assertions I made, including gaining access to pay-walled material and verifying content within books (I know this because of the errors he discovered there).

Delighted as I am that they published the essay, I’m not used to publishing without the footnotes, and I would like to provide all the information. So here I took the final, online version from the Times, and added footnotes for all the sourcing, and put it in a PDF: How Can We Jump-Start the Struggle for Gender Equality?

5 Comments

Filed under Me @ work

Op-Ed plus: Gender composition of college majors

I have an Op-Ed in Sunday’s New York Times, part of the Great Divide series. It’s online now, titled “How Can We Jump-Start the Struggle for Gender Equality?” (My title was, “One Step Back: What Happened to the Gender Revolution?”)

nytgrab

The Times made one very nice graphic from the trends I provided:

nyt-chart

But the one below was left on the cutting-room floor. The text to set it up is:

So why did progress stall in the 1990s? First, despite the removal of many legal and social injustices, the movement away from traditional forms of gender segregation has remained decidedly unidirectional. As the sociologist Paula England has shown, this is most apparent in education. If you look at female representation in the top fields of study since 1970, the pattern is clear. The most female-dominated majors remained that way; the male-dominated majors had continued increases in female representation through the early 2000s; and some heavily male-dominated ones saw dramatic spikes in women’s share of degrees (which have now slowed or stalled). Strikingly absent is the substantial movement of men into even one female-dominated major.

I grouped the majors — blue, green, red — according to their composition in 1971 and tracked them to 2011. Two points: First, the red ones all stayed female dominated. Second, the integration of the blue and green ones mostly slowed or stalled sometime in the 1980s or 1990s (click to enlarge):

majors71-11

3 Comments

Filed under Me @ work

Gender stall: Who wants a female boss edition

Gallup reports, “Americans Still Prefer a Male Boss.” But the glaring stall story in the trend hasn’t made the news. Here is the trend:

gallup-boss-preference

It looks to me like the percentage preferring a male boss hit 35% in 1994, and that’s where it stands now (they ask this hypothetical question of people whether they are employed or not). I don’t find the stall in any of the reporting.

Katy Waldman in Slate said the numbers “represent progress from 1953,” but didn’t mention the stall. Derek Thompson on the Atlantic site said, “In the last 60 years, the male/female boss gap has narrowed from 61 points to just 8 12 points” (he corrected it when I pointed out the arithmetic error). He didn’t mention that the gap was down to about 15 points already by the early 1990s — two decades ago.

Another Atlantic story (which corrected the starting date of the trend after I pointed out the error — hitting my limit of two free corrections per corporate site per day) was titled, “When It Comes to Female Bosses, Women Can Be Their Own Worst Enemy,” and also made no mention of the stalled trend. Other writeups also mentioned the female-boss preference was “up significantly from 1953.”

I wish there were an understanding of the gender stall among the web-based-journalism class. Gallup reasonably wrote in their release:

It is also possible that the experience of working for a female boss affects workers’ preferences. If the latter is the case, and if the proportion of U.S. workers who have female bosses increases in the future, the current preference for a male boss in the overall population could dissipate.

Thompson seized on that conclusion, but missed the equivocation:

The upshot, which Gallup emphasizes, is that most Americans work for guys today, and as more women become bosses, more Americans will probably feel comfortable with women as their boss—or, just as likely, decide it doesn’t really make a difference in the first place.

And the other Atlantic piece mention it, either, concluding, “so there’s hope yet.” (In fairness to the Atlantic writers, where are they going to get this information? Their own site hasn’t published one of my posts mentioning the stall in gender progress since April – ok, twice in April – and before that you’d have to go back to February, February, or December. And that’s, like, a billion Tweets ago.)

But anyway, how about that increase in female managers, who are likely to change these widespread social attitudes against female managers? Don’t hold your breath:

pctfem-managers-cpsNo change since the mid-1990s. Who knew? People who, for example:

Or others who look carefully at the trends they’re reading and writing about.

8 Comments

Filed under In the news

Gender Gap Statistic Gets it from All Sides

I was very happy to write this post for the Gender & Society blog, where it first appeared.

The “gender gap” has gotten a lot of attention this fall. This hard-working statistic is as often abused and attacked by antifeminists as it is misused and misunderstood by those sympathetic to feminism. But it is good for one thing: information.

The statistic is released each year with the U.S. Census Bureau’s income and poverty report. This year they reported 2012 annual earnings as recorded in the March 2013 Current Population Survey (CPS): the median earnings of full-time, year-round working women ($37,791) was 76.5% of men’s ($49,398). That is the source of (accurate) statements such as, “Women still earned only 77 cents for every dollar that men earned in 2012.”

In the category of reading too much into a single number, I put this data brieffrom the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, which helpfully informed us that, “Most Women Working Today Will Not See Equal Pay during their Working Lives.” Here is the chart:

Cohen_image1

Of course, real life projections are not usually made by simply extending a trend with a straight line. The future is not that easy to foresee. If you did want to fit a line to that trend, however, the bad news is that it’s not a straight line that fits, but a third-order polynomial (which improves the measure of fit from .90 to .98). And projected this way, the trend will never reach equality:

Cohen_image2

Fortunately, curvy lines are often no better at predicting the future than straight ones.

Flog that stat

Some defenders of equal pay for women misstate the statistic, as President Bill Clinton did when he said:

“How would you like to show up for work every day, but only get to take home three out of every four paychecks? … if you get paid 75 percent for the same kind of work, it’s as if you were only picking up three paychecks, instead of four, in four pay periods. The average woman has to work, therefore, an extra 17 weeks a year to earn what a similarly-qualified man in the same kind of job makes.”

The mistake here is that he said “same kind of work” and “similarly-qualified man.” That led to the screaming headline on the American Enterprise Institute website, “Still Hyping the Phony Pay Gap.”

But he also went on to say:

“Yes, some of this can be explained — by differences in education, experience and occupation. But even after you make all those adjustments, there is still a very significant gap.”

So he belatedly acknowledged the complexities, and that second statement is true.

Oh, and that exchange occurred in 2000. How far we’ve come.

When Clinton, ever a repository for handy statistics, essentially repeated his statement on September 29 of this year, he played right into the screaming headlines of today’s anti-feminists, including Hanna Rosin, who declared, “I feel the need to set the record straight” in a piece she titled, “The Gender Gap Lie.” Kay Hymowitz also has written extensively to debunk the gender gap, arguing that it mostly results from women’s choices – the educations and occupations they choose, the hours they choose, the “mommy track” they prefer. (Naturally, sociologists are very interested in that construction of “choice.”)

There is no single number that can tell us the true state of gender inequality. But if you had to pick one, this one is pretty good. That’s because it combines factors that affect employment levels, work experience, occupational distributions, and pay discrimination – to give a sense of the place of the typical worker. As long as that number is not zero, there is a gender inequality problem to discuss, whether it results from socialization, family demands, educational sorting and tracking, hiring and promotion discrimination, or pay discrimination – and the details depend on further scrutiny.

Take your pick

We could use a different gender gap. The next figure shows some gender gaps for earnings among full-time, full-year workers in the 2011 American Community Survey (ACS). I’ve cut the sample to compare men and women by education, long-hours status (50+ hours), parenthood (no co-residential children) and marital status (never married). As you can see, the gaps range from a low of 65% for women with an MA degree and no children all the way up to 93% for never-married professional degree or PhD holders with no kids. Generally, the 50-hour limit doesn’t help, but marriage and children make a big difference.Cohen_image3

Another way of restricting the data to consider real-world gaps is shown in the next figure. Here, from the same data, I’ve taken full-time, full-year workers who have a bachelor’s degree and no further education, and sorted them by college major. So these gaps account for educational specialization, and reflect – in addition to any hiring and pay discrimination – occupational sorting within those categories, as well as other educational processes such as university prestige and school performance. The gaps range from 69% for transportation science majors all the way up to 94% for architecture majors.

Cohen_image4

Finally, we might look more closely at occupations. In this figure, again from the 2011 ACS, I have sorted 484 detailed occupational categories according to the median earnings wage gap within them, for full-time, year-round workers. The y-axis shows the cumulative percentage of women who work at or below each level as you move from less equal occupations on the left to more equal ones on the right. I’ve labeled the 25th, 50th and 75th percentile, showing, for example, that half of women work in occupations with a wage gap of 83% or worse.Cohen_image5

Although this figure shows inequality within occupations, it is occupational segregation itself, which extends the gender division of labor into the labor market, that lies behind much of the gender gap – representing the culmination of historical and contemporary processes of allocating people to tasks.

In summary, the wage gap clearly is smaller in some situations than others – smaller for workers without children, especially if they’re never married, smaller for some college majors and in some occupations. Each of these comparisons tells us something different. (More complete statistical analysesthat control for several factors at once create counterfactuals that don’t actually exist, but that do help us isolate important dynamics behind the gender gap.)

We mustn’t read into these numbers more than they can tell us. None of the numbers I’ve shown can discern occupational choice from employer discrimination, for example; or the cumulative effects of time out of the labor force versus discrimination in previous jobs. But the gender gap numbers are measures of inequality. And as long as we are accurate and responsible in our use of these numbers, they are useful sources of information.

9 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized