baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com (12/07/90)
I heard an interesting statistic on the radio the other day. While women in general make ~$.69 for every ~$1.00 that men make, on the same scale, married men make ~$1.30, and single women make ~$1.10... So, it looks like the disadvantaged are married women and single men... Jim Baranski
dhw@iti.org (David H. West) (12/07/90)
In article <93640@aerospace.AERO.ORG> baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com writes: >I heard an interesting statistic on the radio the other day. >While women in general make ~$.69 for every ~$1.00 that men make, on the same >scale, married men make ~$1.30, and single women make ~$1.10... >So, it looks like the disadvantaged are married women and single men... I hypothesize that for men the single/married difference would become much less significant if one controlled for age (married people tend to be older, and hence more advanced in their careers), and that for women the single/married difference would become much less significant if one controlled for the type of job and fraction of nominal full-time worked (often, married women feel free to be less zealous in maximizing their job-related income than do single women or men in general). -David West dhw@iti.org
hans@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Hans Johnsen) (12/07/90)
In article <93640@aerospace.AERO.ORG> baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com writes: >While women in general make ~$.69 for every ~$1.00 that men make, on the same >scale, married men make ~$1.30, and single women make ~$1.10... >So, it looks like the disadvantaged are married women and single men... Be careful about the conclusions you draw. There are *no* statistics given here for married women or single men. You are drawing conclusions which may not be as valid as you think. Even assuming 50% of each gender is married reveals: single men $.70 (ie: still higher than female average) and married women $.28!!!!!! >Jim Baranski These statistics (or similar ones) are often used, although I have never seen a reference for them. Assuming they are legitimate, they are still basically meaningless without taking into account the following: 1) What is single? Are single parents considered in the 'single' stats? 2) Are the unemployed counted in these figures? What about those on welfare? These two factors could make an enormous difference in the stats, as a large percentage of unemployed are young (probably single) men, whereas a large percentage of welfare recipients are single mothers. 3) What percentage of males are married? females? (see above). 4) What is the breakdown by amount of training? That is, women are making inroads in professional fields, but low paying clerical jobs are still mostly female, whereas higher paying labour jobs are male. Also note that it may be that a female professional is more likely to be single, whereas a male profeesional is more likely to be married. In short, there are three kinds of liars: liars, damn liars, and statisticians. 1/2 :-) hans
shy@mtgzz.att.COM (Susan Hallander) (12/12/90)
In article <93640@aerospace.AERO.ORG>, baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com writes: > > > I heard an interesting statistic on the radio the other day. > > While women in general make ~$.69 for every ~$1.00 that men make, on the same > scale, married men make ~$1.30, and single women make ~$1.10... > > So, it looks like the disadvantaged are married women and single men... > > Jim Baranski That's very interesting, Jim. I wonder if the gender and marital status of the people who dole out the raises has anything to do with the statistics you quote. Could it be that the raise-dolers figure that single men don't need as much money as their married counterparts because they aren't supporting a family, and single women need more money then married women because they aren't being supported by anyone. I bet raise-dolers are generally married men. In an ideal world, everyone would be given salaries and raises based on the quality of their work, but that's not how it happens.
msw@unix.cis.pitt.EDU (Matt S Wartell) (12/31/90)
Jim Baranski cites a radio program: While women in general make ~$.69 for every ~$1.00 that men make, on the same scale, married men make ~$1.30, and single women make ~$1.10... Susan Hallander responds: ... Could it be that the raise-dolers figure that single men don't need as much money as their married counterparts because they aren't supporting a family, and single women need more money then married women because they aren't being supported by anyone. I bet raise-dolers are generally married men. Susan assumes that the rates of pay are _caused_by_ the gender and marital status of the worker; the statistics above are correlational, not causal. An alternate hypothetical explanation could be that married men seek training and positions that allow them to support a family and single women do the same in order to support themselves. Married women may opt for less stressful, lower paying jobs because they have the second income to augment their own. I am not asserting that there is no gender bias in salary, just presenting a statistical caution. (Remember 95.378% of all statistics are made up). -- matt wartell, university of pittsburgh msw@unix.cis.pitt.edu
willis@photon.tamu.edu (Willis Marti) (01/02/91)
In article <1990Dec8.214629.14521@cbnewsk.att.com>, shy@mtgzz.att.COM (Susan Hallander) writes: |> I wonder if the gender and marital |> status of the people who dole out the raises has anything to do with |> the statistics you quote. Could it be that the raise-dolers figure |> that single men don't need as much money as their married counterparts |> because they aren't supporting a family, and single women need more |> money then married women because they aren't being supported by |> anyone. I bet raise-dolers are generally married men. |> In an ideal world, everyone would be given salaries and raises based |> on the quality of their work, but that's not how it happens. As a "generally married" man, who's been both the recipient and "raise-doler", I'd have to say my experience, in technical fields in large companies, does not jibe with your theory. I can't think of an instance where the marital status of the employee came into consideration. My comments on the statistics quoted come in two flavors: One, the data are so mixed that gender and marital status *can't* be isolated as factors; Two, there is some degree of self-selection on salaries -- married people often don't take the lower paying jobs because they can't afford to do so. They have to wait until they find the "better" job. Single people will be more flexible in what they will accept. All of is not to deny that gender-based pay discrimination exists, just to say that that oft-quoted statistic is (probably) more B---s--- than value.
ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz) (01/02/91)
Jim Baranski states: ]I heard an interesting statistic on the radio the other day. ]While women in general make ~$.69 for every ~$1.00 that men make, on the ]same scale, married men make ~$1.30, and single women make ~$1.10... ]So, it looks like the disadvantaged are married women and single men... This definately sounds like an untrustworthy statistic. Did the surveyors include women working in the home? Was the work separated into averages for the same job? Married women may not be disadvantaged if they are only supplementing their husbands' income. Married women may be going for less ambitious jobs because their husband is the primary bread winner. On that same line of thought married men may be thinking of the future of thier families and working more than one job or simply applying for and getting the higher paying jobs in our society. It's highly probable that what looks like discrimination between married men and women is in actualality errors in the survey. Again, not much can be said for the difference between single women and men. If this comparison is not made on the basis of equal pay for equal jobs then it is basically useless. Andrea Gansley-Ortiz