Do women actually make more money than men in 2024

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women get more education but are more likely to major in unprofitable things and struggle to repay their loans. They are also more likely to drop to part time or take career breaks. So men still make more. The gap is narrowing or may reverse over time.

If it reverses, expect that instead of women whining endlessly about not making enough instead they will whine endlessly about men not pulling their weight.

It’s hard to know exactly how it will shake out other than whining will be in the cards.

Huh, I wonder why the bolded is true? What could it be, what could it be? I wonder if there is some reason that women often seek less-than-full-time positions or end up out of the workforce for extended periods. Some external factor that we aren't thinking of. I just don't know.

My understanding is the pay gap exists even when studies control for absences due to child rearing. I’m 46. I make less than DH but came in to our marriage with a lot more money (inheritance) and started working about a decade before he did (while he earned his PhD). So my 401k is better and if you include dividends from investments I have a higher income than he does.
Among my 4 closest friends, one earns equally to her husband, one left her job as a consultant to be a mother, one is divorced and earned less than her husband at the time of divorce but now earns more than him, and one (vp in finance) drastically out-earns her husband (elementary school teacher).

Ok, so you've got a supposed stat with no cite (that you aren't even sure of) and some anecdata. Useful.

The point is you can't just say "women are more likely to go part time or take breaks from working" as an explanation for the pay gap without discussing WHY women go part time or take breaks from working. It's not because they are lazy, it's because they do a disproportionate share of unpaid labor in the home, especially around kids.

But in any case, the motherhood penalty can impact women who aren't mothers-- in some fields women can be passed over for more responsibility or promotion because of a belief that IF they be one moms, they'll check out or quit. And since most women do have kids, this leads to thinner ranks of women in upper levels where some of this bias could be addressed. The women who do survive into the C-suite or other leadership also often have survivor bias (if I can do it, why can't you) and therefore don't push for changes that could result in more women moving up.

It's all interrelated. You and your friends might all outearn the men in your lives, but most women don't, and women with young children are least likely to outearn men with young children (.62 to the man's dollar).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's also a trend where jobs dominated by women lose status and pay. Pediatricians are mainly women and they get paid less now than other specialties, for instance.

Ob-gyn too, they are all trained as surgeons but it pays much less than other specialties that include surgery.

Yep, and historically the flip-side is true: computer science during its infancy was thought of as clerical/typist work and was women-dominated. When men began to take an interest, it gained prestige and pay went up. Women were also squeezed out and made to think that they were inferior. The wikipedia page on this is remarkably comprehensive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_computing

You are messing up the causality here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women get more education but are more likely to major in unprofitable things and struggle to repay their loans. They are also more likely to drop to part time or take career breaks. So men still make more. The gap is narrowing or may reverse over time.

If it reverses, expect that instead of women whining endlessly about not making enough instead they will whine endlessly about men not pulling their weight.

It’s hard to know exactly how it will shake out other than whining will be in the cards.

Huh, I wonder why the bolded is true? What could it be, what could it be? I wonder if there is some reason that women often seek less-than-full-time positions or end up out of the workforce for extended periods. Some external factor that we aren't thinking of. I just don't know.

My understanding is the pay gap exists even when studies control for absences due to child rearing. I’m 46. I make less than DH but came in to our marriage with a lot more money (inheritance) and started working about a decade before he did (while he earned his PhD). So my 401k is better and if you include dividends from investments I have a higher income than he does.
Among my 4 closest friends, one earns equally to her husband, one left her job as a consultant to be a mother, one is divorced and earned less than her husband at the time of divorce but now earns more than him, and one (vp in finance) drastically out-earns her husband (elementary school teacher).

But in any case, the motherhood penalty can impact women who aren't mothers-- in some fields women can be passed over for more responsibility or promotion because of a belief that IF they be one moms, they'll check out or quit.

Oh, stop. No hiring manager has ever thought to himself "Oh, this employee might get knocked up one day... I better not hire her.", much less passed that off as a (highly illegal) reason to not hire a woman.

It's all interrelated. You and your friends might all outearn the men in your lives, but most women don't, and women with young children are least likely to outearn men with young children (.62 to the man's dollar).

As long as fathers are flooding hourly positions and working overtime, and woman are in salaried/part-time positions and looking for any excuse to work fewer hours or take unpaid absences, while at the same time receiving tons of financial support from their exes, partners, and government programs (funded by men's tax dollars) for single mothers, it is no wonder that men could possibly be earning more on paper, while women have a greater revenue stream coming in.

How else could women POSSIBLY be responsible for 85% of consumer spending, while only earning 2/3rds of what a man makes? Because they're spending male-earned dollars, be it the DH's, a chunk from an ex's VA disability, or a child support gravy train they've got coming in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women get more education but are more likely to major in unprofitable things and struggle to repay their loans. They are also more likely to drop to part time or take career breaks. So men still make more. The gap is narrowing or may reverse over time.

If it reverses, expect that instead of women whining endlessly about not making enough instead they will whine endlessly about men not pulling their weight.

It’s hard to know exactly how it will shake out other than whining will be in the cards.

Huh, I wonder why the bolded is true? What could it be, what could it be? I wonder if there is some reason that women often seek less-than-full-time positions or end up out of the workforce for extended periods. Some external factor that we aren't thinking of. I just don't know.

My understanding is the pay gap exists even when studies control for absences due to child rearing. I’m 46. I make less than DH but came in to our marriage with a lot more money (inheritance) and started working about a decade before he did (while he earned his PhD). So my 401k is better and if you include dividends from investments I have a higher income than he does.
Among my 4 closest friends, one earns equally to her husband, one left her job as a consultant to be a mother, one is divorced and earned less than her husband at the time of divorce but now earns more than him, and one (vp in finance) drastically out-earns her husband (elementary school teacher).

But in any case, the motherhood penalty can impact women who aren't mothers-- in some fields women can be passed over for more responsibility or promotion because of a belief that IF they be one moms, they'll check out or quit.

Oh, stop. No hiring manager has ever thought to himself "Oh, this employee might get knocked up one day... I better not hire her.", much less passed that off as a (highly illegal) reason to not hire a woman.

It's all interrelated. You and your friends might all outearn the men in your lives, but most women don't, and women with young children are least likely to outearn men with young children (.62 to the man's dollar).

As long as fathers are flooding hourly positions and working overtime, and woman are in salaried/part-time positions and looking for any excuse to work fewer hours or take unpaid absences, while at the same time receiving tons of financial support from their exes, partners, and government programs (funded by men's tax dollars) for single mothers, it is no wonder that men could possibly be earning more on paper, while women have a greater revenue stream coming in.

How else could women POSSIBLY be responsible for 85% of consumer spending, while only earning 2/3rds of what a man makes? Because they're spending male-earned dollars, be it the DH's, a chunk from an ex's VA disability, or a child support gravy train they've got coming in.

I had potential advisors in graduate school tell me that my career goal to be a principal investigator in a tier 1 institution was flawed because I might have kids someday. And that even if I didn't, I would regret it. Therefore, they were going to pass on admitting me to their labs and choose someone else. Multiple PIs.

Also, women are responsible for 85% of consumer spending because the men in their lives couldn't be bothered to remember to pick up diapers or food for the kids. It isn't rocket science.

[Anonymous]

Just read this great book called “a year of living danishly” all about life in Denmark. It’s one of the most feminist countries and the men all take maternity leave etc. and yet the author says that even there women get asked about their plans to have children and get fewer promotions and get penalized because they are mothers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women get more education but are more likely to major in unprofitable things and struggle to repay their loans. They are also more likely to drop to part time or take career breaks. So men still make more. The gap is narrowing or may reverse over time.

If it reverses, expect that instead of women whining endlessly about not making enough instead they will whine endlessly about men not pulling their weight.

It’s hard to know exactly how it will shake out other than whining will be in the cards.

Huh, I wonder why the bolded is true? What could it be, what could it be? I wonder if there is some reason that women often seek less-than-full-time positions or end up out of the workforce for extended periods. Some external factor that we aren't thinking of. I just don't know.

My understanding is the pay gap exists even when studies control for absences due to child rearing. I’m 46. I make less than DH but came in to our marriage with a lot more money (inheritance) and started working about a decade before he did (while he earned his PhD). So my 401k is better and if you include dividends from investments I have a higher income than he does.
Among my 4 closest friends, one earns equally to her husband, one left her job as a consultant to be a mother, one is divorced and earned less than her husband at the time of divorce but now earns more than him, and one (vp in finance) drastically out-earns her husband (elementary school teacher).

But in any case, the motherhood penalty can impact women who aren't mothers-- in some fields women can be passed over for more responsibility or promotion because of a belief that IF they be one moms, they'll check out or quit.

Oh, stop. No hiring manager has ever thought to himself "Oh, this employee might get knocked up one day... I better not hire her.", much less passed that off as a (highly illegal) reason to not hire a woman.

It's all interrelated. You and your friends might all outearn the men in your lives, but most women don't, and women with young children are least likely to outearn men with young children (.62 to the man's dollar).

As long as fathers are flooding hourly positions and working overtime, and woman are in salaried/part-time positions and looking for any excuse to work fewer hours or take unpaid absences, while at the same time receiving tons of financial support from their exes, partners, and government programs (funded by men's tax dollars) for single mothers, it is no wonder that men could possibly be earning more on paper, while women have a greater revenue stream coming in.

How else could women POSSIBLY be responsible for 85% of consumer spending, while only earning 2/3rds of what a man makes? Because they're spending male-earned dollars, be it the DH's, a chunk from an ex's VA disability, or a child support gravy train they've got coming in.

I had potential advisors in graduate school tell me that my career goal to be a principal investigator in a tier 1 institution was flawed because I might have kids someday. And that even if I didn't, I would regret it. Therefore, they were going to pass on admitting me to their labs and choose someone else. Multiple PIs.

Also, women are responsible for 85% of consumer spending because the men in their lives couldn't be bothered to remember to pick up diapers or food for the kids. It isn't rocket science.

First paragraph... That's illegal and, assuming this didn't happen prior to Title IX, why on earth did you not contest it?

Second paragraph... Doesn't change the fact they're spending men's money to buy those things. Despite being a popular excuse, you don't achieve 85% of consumer spending on just "the kids"; it's also hair products, makeup, pedicures, designer clothes, Ikea furniture that DH hates, the latest phone, daily Starbucks, a new car payment, and other non-essentials that add up to far, FAR more than diapers and applesauce. All on the dime of the DH or ex's child support, of course - the unspoken heroes who EARNED one dollar for every one of your 61 cents earned through their unforgiving manual labor jobs and countless overtime, but ultimately forking over half that in taxes, "joint" income, no-fault divorces, and support payments to the women who demand "more, more, more" unearned income in their pockets for the next Ikea furniture run or girls' night out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women get more education but are more likely to major in unprofitable things and struggle to repay their loans. They are also more likely to drop to part time or take career breaks. So men still make more. The gap is narrowing or may reverse over time.

If it reverses, expect that instead of women whining endlessly about not making enough instead they will whine endlessly about men not pulling their weight.

It’s hard to know exactly how it will shake out other than whining will be in the cards.

Huh, I wonder why the bolded is true? What could it be, what could it be? I wonder if there is some reason that women often seek less-than-full-time positions or end up out of the workforce for extended periods. Some external factor that we aren't thinking of. I just don't know.

My understanding is the pay gap exists even when studies control for absences due to child rearing. I’m 46. I make less than DH but came in to our marriage with a lot more money (inheritance) and started working about a decade before he did (while he earned his PhD). So my 401k is better and if you include dividends from investments I have a higher income than he does.
Among my 4 closest friends, one earns equally to her husband, one left her job as a consultant to be a mother, one is divorced and earned less than her husband at the time of divorce but now earns more than him, and one (vp in finance) drastically out-earns her husband (elementary school teacher).

But in any case, the motherhood penalty can impact women who aren't mothers-- in some fields women can be passed over for more responsibility or promotion because of a belief that IF they be one moms, they'll check out or quit.

Oh, stop. No hiring manager has ever thought to himself "Oh, this employee might get knocked up one day... I better not hire her.", much less passed that off as a (highly illegal) reason to not hire a woman.

It's all interrelated. You and your friends might all outearn the men in your lives, but most women don't, and women with young children are least likely to outearn men with young children (.62 to the man's dollar).

As long as fathers are flooding hourly positions and working overtime, and woman are in salaried/part-time positions and looking for any excuse to work fewer hours or take unpaid absences, while at the same time receiving tons of financial support from their exes, partners, and government programs (funded by men's tax dollars) for single mothers, it is no wonder that men could possibly be earning more on paper, while women have a greater revenue stream coming in.

How else could women POSSIBLY be responsible for 85% of consumer spending, while only earning 2/3rds of what a man makes? Because they're spending male-earned dollars, be it the DH's, a chunk from an ex's VA disability, or a child support gravy train they've got coming in.

I had potential advisors in graduate school tell me that my career goal to be a principal investigator in a tier 1 institution was flawed because I might have kids someday. And that even if I didn't, I would regret it. Therefore, they were going to pass on admitting me to their labs and choose someone else. Multiple PIs.

Also, women are responsible for 85% of consumer spending because the men in their lives couldn't be bothered to remember to pick up diapers or food for the kids. It isn't rocket science.

First paragraph... That's illegal and, assuming this didn't happen prior to Title IX, why on earth did you not contest it?

Second paragraph... Doesn't change the fact they're spending men's money to buy those things. Despite being a popular excuse, you don't achieve 85% of consumer spending on just "the kids"; it's also hair products, makeup, pedicures, designer clothes, Ikea furniture that DH hates, the latest phone, daily Starbucks, a new car payment, and other non-essentials that add up to far, FAR more than diapers and applesauce. All on the dime of the DH or ex's child support, of course - the unspoken heroes who EARNED one dollar for every one of your 61 cents earned through their unforgiving manual labor jobs and countless overtime, but ultimately forking over half that in taxes, "joint" income, no-fault divorces, and support payments to the women who demand "more, more, more" unearned income in their pockets for the next Ikea furniture run or girls' night out.

You sound like a cheap looser. I’m a woman live alone no man suppers me. I’m able to afford all of the above and more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women get more education but are more likely to major in unprofitable things and struggle to repay their loans. They are also more likely to drop to part time or take career breaks. So men still make more. The gap is narrowing or may reverse over time.

If it reverses, expect that instead of women whining endlessly about not making enough instead they will whine endlessly about men not pulling their weight.

It’s hard to know exactly how it will shake out other than whining will be in the cards.

Huh, I wonder why the bolded is true? What could it be, what could it be? I wonder if there is some reason that women often seek less-than-full-time positions or end up out of the workforce for extended periods. Some external factor that we aren't thinking of. I just don't know.

My understanding is the pay gap exists even when studies control for absences due to child rearing. I’m 46. I make less than DH but came in to our marriage with a lot more money (inheritance) and started working about a decade before he did (while he earned his PhD). So my 401k is better and if you include dividends from investments I have a higher income than he does.
Among my 4 closest friends, one earns equally to her husband, one left her job as a consultant to be a mother, one is divorced and earned less than her husband at the time of divorce but now earns more than him, and one (vp in finance) drastically out-earns her husband (elementary school teacher).

But in any case, the motherhood penalty can impact women who aren't mothers-- in some fields women can be passed over for more responsibility or promotion because of a belief that IF they be one moms, they'll check out or quit.

Oh, stop. No hiring manager has ever thought to himself "Oh, this employee might get knocked up one day... I better not hire her.", much less passed that off as a (highly illegal) reason to not hire a woman.

It's all interrelated. You and your friends might all outearn the men in your lives, but most women don't, and women with young children are least likely to outearn men with young children (.62 to the man's dollar).

As long as fathers are flooding hourly positions and working overtime, and woman are in salaried/part-time positions and looking for any excuse to work fewer hours or take unpaid absences, while at the same time receiving tons of financial support from their exes, partners, and government programs (funded by men's tax dollars) for single mothers, it is no wonder that men could possibly be earning more on paper, while women have a greater revenue stream coming in.

How else could women POSSIBLY be responsible for 85% of consumer spending, while only earning 2/3rds of what a man makes? Because they're spending male-earned dollars, be it the DH's, a chunk from an ex's VA disability, or a child support gravy train they've got coming in.

I had potential advisors in graduate school tell me that my career goal to be a principal investigator in a tier 1 institution was flawed because I might have kids someday. And that even if I didn't, I would regret it. Therefore, they were going to pass on admitting me to their labs and choose someone else. Multiple PIs.

Also, women are responsible for 85% of consumer spending because the men in their lives couldn't be bothered to remember to pick up diapers or food for the kids. It isn't rocket science.

First paragraph... That's illegal and, assuming this didn't happen prior to Title IX, why on earth did you not contest it?

Second paragraph... Doesn't change the fact they're spending men's money to buy those things. Despite being a popular excuse, you don't achieve 85% of consumer spending on just "the kids"; it's also hair products, makeup, pedicures, designer clothes, Ikea furniture that DH hates, the latest phone, daily Starbucks, a new car payment, and other non-essentials that add up to far, FAR more than diapers and applesauce. All on the dime of the DH or ex's child support, of course - the unspoken heroes who EARNED one dollar for every one of your 61 cents earned through their unforgiving manual labor jobs and countless overtime, but ultimately forking over half that in taxes, "joint" income, no-fault divorces, and support payments to the women who demand "more, more, more" unearned income in their pockets for the next Ikea furniture run or girls' night out.

Except that my company hires senior level male managers to supervise me, and who have zero technical skills and a memory of gold fish . But are very self assured and always on some sort of power trips

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a lawyer and the gender pay gap in the law is really dramatic because of the penalty in the law for being a woman with kids (there is no penalty for men for having kids). The women who transcend it either (1) do not have children, or (2) have a spouse who is willing to be the primary parent. It's not very common.

Women are making a lot of progress (it's waaaaaaaay better than it was a generation ago, and that was waaaaaaay better than it was a generation before that) but it's still nowhere close to equal. Especially among top earners. I have friends and colleagues who are partners at tippy top firms, and considered the leaders in their practice specialties. The women don't make as much as the men. They work as hard, they are as smart, they are as good with clients, the money doesn't match.

It is especially brutal because of how much it costs to become a lawyer (law school is obscenely expensive) and the ROI for women isn't as good.

I am 20 years into my career and these are painful truths -- I really thought we were further along than this when I entered the field.

Totally agree. I am 25 years into my career and happen to be a GC. But goodness, what it took to get here. My aunt who became a lawyer in the 70s has stories about men wanting to call her husband to see if she would be allowed to work, etc. She was the first lawyer at her major firm to have a baby. There was literally no such thing as maternity leave. She actually made partner in the early 80s but the men she worked with still wanted to check with her husband on whether she could travel for work, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women get more education but are more likely to major in unprofitable things and struggle to repay their loans. They are also more likely to drop to part time or take career breaks. So men still make more. The gap is narrowing or may reverse over time.

If it reverses, expect that instead of women whining endlessly about not making enough instead they will whine endlessly about men not pulling their weight.

It’s hard to know exactly how it will shake out other than whining will be in the cards.

Huh, I wonder why the bolded is true? What could it be, what could it be? I wonder if there is some reason that women often seek less-than-full-time positions or end up out of the workforce for extended periods. Some external factor that we aren't thinking of. I just don't know.

My understanding is the pay gap exists even when studies control for absences due to child rearing. I’m 46. I make less than DH but came in to our marriage with a lot more money (inheritance) and started working about a decade before he did (while he earned his PhD). So my 401k is better and if you include dividends from investments I have a higher income than he does.
Among my 4 closest friends, one earns equally to her husband, one left her job as a consultant to be a mother, one is divorced and earned less than her husband at the time of divorce but now earns more than him, and one (vp in finance) drastically out-earns her husband (elementary school teacher).

But in any case, the motherhood penalty can impact women who aren't mothers-- in some fields women can be passed over for more responsibility or promotion because of a belief that IF they be one moms, they'll check out or quit.

Oh, stop. No hiring manager has ever thought to himself "Oh, this employee might get knocked up one day... I better not hire her.", much less passed that off as a (highly illegal) reason to not hire a woman.

It's all interrelated. You and your friends might all outearn the men in your lives, but most women don't, and women with young children are least likely to outearn men with young children (.62 to the man's dollar).

As long as fathers are flooding hourly positions and working overtime, and woman are in salaried/part-time positions and looking for any excuse to work fewer hours or take unpaid absences, while at the same time receiving tons of financial support from their exes, partners, and government programs (funded by men's tax dollars) for single mothers, it is no wonder that men could possibly be earning more on paper, while women have a greater revenue stream coming in.

How else could women POSSIBLY be responsible for 85% of consumer spending, while only earning 2/3rds of what a man makes? Because they're spending male-earned dollars, be it the DH's, a chunk from an ex's VA disability, or a child support gravy train they've got coming in.

I had potential advisors in graduate school tell me that my career goal to be a principal investigator in a tier 1 institution was flawed because I might have kids someday. And that even if I didn't, I would regret it. Therefore, they were going to pass on admitting me to their labs and choose someone else. Multiple PIs.

Also, women are responsible for 85% of consumer spending because the men in their lives couldn't be bothered to remember to pick up diapers or food for the kids. It isn't rocket science.

First paragraph... That's illegal and, assuming this didn't happen prior to Title IX, why on earth did you not contest it?

Second paragraph... Doesn't change the fact they're spending men's money to buy those things. Despite being a popular excuse, you don't achieve 85% of consumer spending on just "the kids"; it's also hair products, makeup, pedicures, designer clothes, Ikea furniture that DH hates, the latest phone, daily Starbucks, a new car payment, and other non-essentials that add up to far, FAR more than diapers and applesauce. All on the dime of the DH or ex's child support, of course - the unspoken heroes who EARNED one dollar for every one of your 61 cents earned through their unforgiving manual labor jobs and countless overtime, but ultimately forking over half that in taxes, "joint" income, no-fault divorces, and support payments to the women who demand "more, more, more" unearned income in their pockets for the next Ikea furniture run or girls' night out.

First paragraph: This was the early 2000s, and I hear the same sort of nonsense from my postdocs coming through the system now. They gravitate towards young PIs like me that show that one can have a family and 'make it' in science. To answer your question: because graduate students are an extremely vulnerable population, and Title IX claims are rarely successful, painful, and drastically change the trajectory of the the student regardless of who is right. Certainly, it is/was understood that it is much better work with the men in charge than to challenge them if you want to succeed in the field.

Second paragraph: Why are you bringing child support, ikea, etc into this conversation - that's not relevant to what's being discussed there. Are you sore about having to pay child support for your own kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women get more education but are more likely to major in unprofitable things and struggle to repay their loans. They are also more likely to drop to part time or take career breaks. So men still make more. The gap is narrowing or may reverse over time.

If it reverses, expect that instead of women whining endlessly about not making enough instead they will whine endlessly about men not pulling their weight.

It’s hard to know exactly how it will shake out other than whining will be in the cards.

Huh, I wonder why the bolded is true? What could it be, what could it be? I wonder if there is some reason that women often seek less-than-full-time positions or end up out of the workforce for extended periods. Some external factor that we aren't thinking of. I just don't know.

My understanding is the pay gap exists even when studies control for absences due to child rearing. I’m 46. I make less than DH but came in to our marriage with a lot more money (inheritance) and started working about a decade before he did (while he earned his PhD). So my 401k is better and if you include dividends from investments I have a higher income than he does.
Among my 4 closest friends, one earns equally to her husband, one left her job as a consultant to be a mother, one is divorced and earned less than her husband at the time of divorce but now earns more than him, and one (vp in finance) drastically out-earns her husband (elementary school teacher).

But in any case, the motherhood penalty can impact women who aren't mothers-- in some fields women can be passed over for more responsibility or promotion because of a belief that IF they be one moms, they'll check out or quit.

Oh, stop. No hiring manager has ever thought to himself "Oh, this employee might get knocked up one day... I better not hire her.", much less passed that off as a (highly illegal) reason to not hire a woman.

It's all interrelated. You and your friends might all outearn the men in your lives, but most women don't, and women with young children are least likely to outearn men with young children (.62 to the man's dollar).

As long as fathers are flooding hourly positions and working overtime, and woman are in salaried/part-time positions and looking for any excuse to work fewer hours or take unpaid absences, while at the same time receiving tons of financial support from their exes, partners, and government programs (funded by men's tax dollars) for single mothers, it is no wonder that men could possibly be earning more on paper, while women have a greater revenue stream coming in.

How else could women POSSIBLY be responsible for 85% of consumer spending, while only earning 2/3rds of what a man makes? Because they're spending male-earned dollars, be it the DH's, a chunk from an ex's VA disability, or a child support gravy train they've got coming in.

Uh, the bias against women in the workforce because they *might* have kids used to be so stark that this is the reason there are no laws to prevent interviewers from asking applicants about their relationship status or family life/plans.

And it's better now than it used to be but in some industries where long hours and travel are common, you still see bias against women if they are perceived as being likely to have kids. I know women who hid engagements from their firm because of how it could impact their promotional potential. Men don't even have to think about that stuff.

It's a catch-22 because we can't figure out a way around women doing the bulk of the labor around caring for kids, but a lot of industries just don't really make allowances for women to be able to step away to have kids. It's not how careers work, and it's especially not how careers in highly competitive, higher paying industries and roles work. So women wind up stuck between a rock and a hard place. Yes it's better than it used to be -- there are more opportunities, there are actual workplace protections against bias, there are lots of bright spots. But when you compare the experiences of men and women in the workforce, there's still no question that women lag behind in pay and promotional potential.

Also, PP: women are more likely than men to work hourly jobs (72 to 66 percent) so I don't know where you get the idea that women are being paid to sit around while men "earn" their income. Women dominate care industries (childcare, healthcare) which are largely hourly and tend to be very physically demanding and always on. Even many of the salaried positions dominated by women, like teaching, tend to be more public facing or service oriented and therefore require more direct engagement and less downtime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women get more education but are more likely to major in unprofitable things and struggle to repay their loans. They are also more likely to drop to part time or take career breaks. So men still make more. The gap is narrowing or may reverse over time.

If it reverses, expect that instead of women whining endlessly about not making enough instead they will whine endlessly about men not pulling their weight.

It’s hard to know exactly how it will shake out other than whining will be in the cards.

Huh, I wonder why the bolded is true? What could it be, what could it be? I wonder if there is some reason that women often seek less-than-full-time positions or end up out of the workforce for extended periods. Some external factor that we aren't thinking of. I just don't know.

My understanding is the pay gap exists even when studies control for absences due to child rearing. I’m 46. I make less than DH but came in to our marriage with a lot more money (inheritance) and started working about a decade before he did (while he earned his PhD). So my 401k is better and if you include dividends from investments I have a higher income than he does.
Among my 4 closest friends, one earns equally to her husband, one left her job as a consultant to be a mother, one is divorced and earned less than her husband at the time of divorce but now earns more than him, and one (vp in finance) drastically out-earns her husband (elementary school teacher).

But in any case, the motherhood penalty can impact women who aren't mothers-- in some fields women can be passed over for more responsibility or promotion because of a belief that IF they be one moms, they'll check out or quit.

Oh, stop. No hiring manager has ever thought to himself "Oh, this employee might get knocked up one day... I better not hire her.", much less passed that off as a (highly illegal) reason to not hire a woman.

It's all interrelated. You and your friends might all outearn the men in your lives, but most women don't, and women with young children are least likely to outearn men with young children (.62 to the man's dollar).

As long as fathers are flooding hourly positions and working overtime, and woman are in salaried/part-time positions and looking for any excuse to work fewer hours or take unpaid absences, while at the same time receiving tons of financial support from their exes, partners, and government programs (funded by men's tax dollars) for single mothers, it is no wonder that men could possibly be earning more on paper, while women have a greater revenue stream coming in.

How else could women POSSIBLY be responsible for 85% of consumer spending, while only earning 2/3rds of what a man makes? Because they're spending male-earned dollars, be it the DH's, a chunk from an ex's VA disability, or a child support gravy train they've got coming in.

I had potential advisors in graduate school tell me that my career goal to be a principal investigator in a tier 1 institution was flawed because I might have kids someday. And that even if I didn't, I would regret it. Therefore, they were going to pass on admitting me to their labs and choose someone else. Multiple PIs.

Also, women are responsible for 85% of consumer spending because the men in their lives couldn't be bothered to remember to pick up diapers or food for the kids. It isn't rocket science.

First paragraph... That's illegal and, assuming this didn't happen prior to Title IX, why on earth did you not contest it?

Second paragraph... Doesn't change the fact they're spending men's money to buy those things. Despite being a popular excuse, you don't achieve 85% of consumer spending on just "the kids"; it's also hair products, makeup, pedicures, designer clothes, Ikea furniture that DH hates, the latest phone, daily Starbucks, a new car payment, and other non-essentials that add up to far, FAR more than diapers and applesauce. All on the dime of the DH or ex's child support, of course - the unspoken heroes who EARNED one dollar for every one of your 61 cents earned through their unforgiving manual labor jobs and countless overtime, but ultimately forking over half that in taxes, "joint" income, no-fault divorces, and support payments to the women who demand "more, more, more" unearned income in their pockets for the next Ikea furniture run or girls' night out.

Except that my company hires senior level male managers to supervise me, and who have zero technical skills and a memory of gold fish . But are very self assured and always on some sort of power trips

If they saw your comment, I'm sure they'd let out a patriarchal howl and set the record straight on that one. In any case, it's not their job to do the technical work - it's yours. They call the shots, and evidently they're doing a good job of it since you have money in your pocket, food in your stomach, and a computer to type on.

quote=Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women get more education but are more likely to major in unprofitable things and struggle to repay their loans. They are also more likely to drop to part time or take career breaks. So men still make more. The gap is narrowing or may reverse over time.

If it reverses, expect that instead of women whining endlessly about not making enough instead they will whine endlessly about men not pulling their weight.

It’s hard to know exactly how it will shake out other than whining will be in the cards.

Huh, I wonder why the bolded is true? What could it be, what could it be? I wonder if there is some reason that women often seek less-than-full-time positions or end up out of the workforce for extended periods. Some external factor that we aren't thinking of. I just don't know.

My understanding is the pay gap exists even when studies control for absences due to child rearing. I’m 46. I make less than DH but came in to our marriage with a lot more money (inheritance) and started working about a decade before he did (while he earned his PhD). So my 401k is better and if you include dividends from investments I have a higher income than he does.
Among my 4 closest friends, one earns equally to her husband, one left her job as a consultant to be a mother, one is divorced and earned less than her husband at the time of divorce but now earns more than him, and one (vp in finance) drastically out-earns her husband (elementary school teacher).

But in any case, the motherhood penalty can impact women who aren't mothers-- in some fields women can be passed over for more responsibility or promotion because of a belief that IF they be one moms, they'll check out or quit.

Oh, stop. No hiring manager has ever thought to himself "Oh, this employee might get knocked up one day... I better not hire her.", much less passed that off as a (highly illegal) reason to not hire a woman.

It's all interrelated. You and your friends might all outearn the men in your lives, but most women don't, and women with young children are least likely to outearn men with young children (.62 to the man's dollar).

As long as fathers are flooding hourly positions and working overtime, and woman are in salaried/part-time positions and looking for any excuse to work fewer hours or take unpaid absences, while at the same time receiving tons of financial support from their exes, partners, and government programs (funded by men's tax dollars) for single mothers, it is no wonder that men could possibly be earning more on paper, while women have a greater revenue stream coming in.

How else could women POSSIBLY be responsible for 85% of consumer spending, while only earning 2/3rds of what a man makes? Because they're spending male-earned dollars, be it the DH's, a chunk from an ex's VA disability, or a child support gravy train they've got coming in.

I had potential advisors in graduate school tell me that my career goal to be a principal investigator in a tier 1 institution was flawed because I might have kids someday. And that even if I didn't, I would regret it. Therefore, they were going to pass on admitting me to their labs and choose someone else. Multiple PIs.

Also, women are responsible for 85% of consumer spending because the men in their lives couldn't be bothered to remember to pick up diapers or food for the kids. It isn't rocket science.

First paragraph... That's illegal and, assuming this didn't happen prior to Title IX, why on earth did you not contest it?

Second paragraph... Doesn't change the fact they're spending men's money to buy those things. Despite being a popular excuse, you don't achieve 85% of consumer spending on just "the kids"; it's also hair products, makeup, pedicures, designer clothes, Ikea furniture that DH hates, the latest phone, daily Starbucks, a new car payment, and other non-essentials that add up to far, FAR more than diapers and applesauce. All on the dime of the DH or ex's child support, of course - the unspoken heroes who EARNED one dollar for every one of your 61 cents earned through their unforgiving manual labor jobs and countless overtime, but ultimately forking over half that in taxes, "joint" income, no-fault divorces, and support payments to the women who demand "more, more, more" unearned income in their pockets for the next Ikea furniture run or girls' night out.

Second paragraph: Why are you bringing child support, ikea, etc into this conversation - that's not relevant to what's being discussed there. Are you sore about having to pay child support for your own kids?
They're absolutely relevant to what's being discussed here, as the discussion is about a wage gap and I've established that men quite possibly earn more than woman, but most of their earnings go towards women. A minimum of 30% goes to taxes, funds get poured into a comingled joint checking account for DW's unrestricted access, then assets are divided in half in the ensuing divorce, with successive child/spousal support payments by XH, along with any of his VA benefits, SS benefits (that one's not out of his pocket thankfully), and other freebies he earned.

Clearly, earning 39% less while having 85% of the spending power is nothing to complain about. Quit while you're ahead, before enough men get fed up enough to overturn the archaic divorce and welfare laws that are filling your pockets with men's dollars.

I am single and don't have kids. I'm advocating for the fathers who have been henpecked to death by a misandrist culture that demands more, more, more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women get more education but are more likely to major in unprofitable things and struggle to repay their loans. They are also more likely to drop to part time or take career breaks. So men still make more. The gap is narrowing or may reverse over time.

If it reverses, expect that instead of women whining endlessly about not making enough instead they will whine endlessly about men not pulling their weight.

It’s hard to know exactly how it will shake out other than whining will be in the cards.

Huh, I wonder why the bolded is true? What could it be, what could it be? I wonder if there is some reason that women often seek less-than-full-time positions or end up out of the workforce for extended periods. Some external factor that we aren't thinking of. I just don't know.

My understanding is the pay gap exists even when studies control for absences due to child rearing. I’m 46. I make less than DH but came in to our marriage with a lot more money (inheritance) and started working about a decade before he did (while he earned his PhD). So my 401k is better and if you include dividends from investments I have a higher income than he does.
Among my 4 closest friends, one earns equally to her husband, one left her job as a consultant to be a mother, one is divorced and earned less than her husband at the time of divorce but now earns more than him, and one (vp in finance) drastically out-earns her husband (elementary school teacher).

But in any case, the motherhood penalty can impact women who aren't mothers-- in some fields women can be passed over for more responsibility or promotion because of a belief that IF they be one moms, they'll check out or quit.

Oh, stop. No hiring manager has ever thought to himself "Oh, this employee might get knocked up one day... I better not hire her.", much less passed that off as a (highly illegal) reason to not hire a woman.

It's all interrelated. You and your friends might all outearn the men in your lives, but most women don't, and women with young children are least likely to outearn men with young children (.62 to the man's dollar).

As long as fathers are flooding hourly positions and working overtime, and woman are in salaried/part-time positions and looking for any excuse to work fewer hours or take unpaid absences, while at the same time receiving tons of financial support from their exes, partners, and government programs (funded by men's tax dollars) for single mothers, it is no wonder that men could possibly be earning more on paper, while women have a greater revenue stream coming in.

How else could women POSSIBLY be responsible for 85% of consumer spending, while only earning 2/3rds of what a man makes? Because they're spending male-earned dollars, be it the DH's, a chunk from an ex's VA disability, or a child support gravy train they've got coming in.

I had potential advisors in graduate school tell me that my career goal to be a principal investigator in a tier 1 institution was flawed because I might have kids someday. And that even if I didn't, I would regret it. Therefore, they were going to pass on admitting me to their labs and choose someone else. Multiple PIs.

Also, women are responsible for 85% of consumer spending because the men in their lives couldn't be bothered to remember to pick up diapers or food for the kids. It isn't rocket science.

First paragraph... That's illegal and, assuming this didn't happen prior to Title IX, why on earth did you not contest it?

Second paragraph... Doesn't change the fact they're spending men's money to buy those things. Despite being a popular excuse, you don't achieve 85% of consumer spending on just "the kids"; it's also hair products, makeup, pedicures, designer clothes, Ikea furniture that DH hates, the latest phone, daily Starbucks, a new car payment, and other non-essentials that add up to far, FAR more than diapers and applesauce. All on the dime of the DH or ex's child support, of course - the unspoken heroes who EARNED one dollar for every one of your 61 cents earned through their unforgiving manual labor jobs and countless overtime, but ultimately forking over half that in taxes, "joint" income, no-fault divorces, and support payments to the women who demand "more, more, more" unearned income in their pockets for the next Ikea furniture run or girls' night out.

Except that my company hires senior level male managers to supervise me, and who have zero technical skills and a memory of gold fish . But are very self assured and always on some sort of power trips

If they saw your comment, I'm sure they'd let out a patriarchal howl and set the record straight on that one. In any case, it's not their job to do the technical work - it's yours. They call the shots, and evidently they're doing a good job of it since you have money in your pocket, food in your stomach, and a computer to type on.

quote=Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women get more education but are more likely to major in unprofitable things and struggle to repay their loans. They are also more likely to drop to part time or take career breaks. So men still make more. The gap is narrowing or may reverse over time.

If it reverses, expect that instead of women whining endlessly about not making enough instead they will whine endlessly about men not pulling their weight.

It’s hard to know exactly how it will shake out other than whining will be in the cards.

Huh, I wonder why the bolded is true? What could it be, what could it be? I wonder if there is some reason that women often seek less-than-full-time positions or end up out of the workforce for extended periods. Some external factor that we aren't thinking of. I just don't know.

My understanding is the pay gap exists even when studies control for absences due to child rearing. I’m 46. I make less than DH but came in to our marriage with a lot more money (inheritance) and started working about a decade before he did (while he earned his PhD). So my 401k is better and if you include dividends from investments I have a higher income than he does.
Among my 4 closest friends, one earns equally to her husband, one left her job as a consultant to be a mother, one is divorced and earned less than her husband at the time of divorce but now earns more than him, and one (vp in finance) drastically out-earns her husband (elementary school teacher).

But in any case, the motherhood penalty can impact women who aren't mothers-- in some fields women can be passed over for more responsibility or promotion because of a belief that IF they be one moms, they'll check out or quit.

Oh, stop. No hiring manager has ever thought to himself "Oh, this employee might get knocked up one day... I better not hire her.", much less passed that off as a (highly illegal) reason to not hire a woman.

It's all interrelated. You and your friends might all outearn the men in your lives, but most women don't, and women with young children are least likely to outearn men with young children (.62 to the man's dollar).

As long as fathers are flooding hourly positions and working overtime, and woman are in salaried/part-time positions and looking for any excuse to work fewer hours or take unpaid absences, while at the same time receiving tons of financial support from their exes, partners, and government programs (funded by men's tax dollars) for single mothers, it is no wonder that men could possibly be earning more on paper, while women have a greater revenue stream coming in.

How else could women POSSIBLY be responsible for 85% of consumer spending, while only earning 2/3rds of what a man makes? Because they're spending male-earned dollars, be it the DH's, a chunk from an ex's VA disability, or a child support gravy train they've got coming in.

I had potential advisors in graduate school tell me that my career goal to be a principal investigator in a tier 1 institution was flawed because I might have kids someday. And that even if I didn't, I would regret it. Therefore, they were going to pass on admitting me to their labs and choose someone else. Multiple PIs.

Also, women are responsible for 85% of consumer spending because the men in their lives couldn't be bothered to remember to pick up diapers or food for the kids. It isn't rocket science.

First paragraph... That's illegal and, assuming this didn't happen prior to Title IX, why on earth did you not contest it?

Second paragraph... Doesn't change the fact they're spending men's money to buy those things. Despite being a popular excuse, you don't achieve 85% of consumer spending on just "the kids"; it's also hair products, makeup, pedicures, designer clothes, Ikea furniture that DH hates, the latest phone, daily Starbucks, a new car payment, and other non-essentials that add up to far, FAR more than diapers and applesauce. All on the dime of the DH or ex's child support, of course - the unspoken heroes who EARNED one dollar for every one of your 61 cents earned through their unforgiving manual labor jobs and countless overtime, but ultimately forking over half that in taxes, "joint" income, no-fault divorces, and support payments to the women who demand "more, more, more" unearned income in their pockets for the next Ikea furniture run or girls' night out.

Second paragraph: Why are you bringing child support, ikea, etc into this conversation - that's not relevant to what's being discussed there. Are you sore about having to pay child support for your own kids?

They're absolutely relevant to what's being discussed here, as the discussion is about a wage gap and I've established that men quite possibly earn more than woman, but most of their earnings go towards women. A minimum of 30% goes to taxes, funds get poured into a comingled joint checking account for DW's unrestricted access, then assets are divided in half in the ensuing divorce, with successive child/spousal support payments by XH, along with any of his VA benefits, SS benefits (that one's not out of his pocket thankfully), and other freebies he earned.

Clearly, earning 39% less while having 85% of the spending power is nothing to complain about. Quit while you're ahead, before enough men get fed up enough to overturn the archaic divorce and welfare laws that are filling your pockets with men's dollars.

I am single and don't have kids. I'm advocating for the fathers who have been henpecked to death by a misandrist culture that demands more, more, more.

No, these senior male managers don’t do a great job. I require zero supervision and can do my job with a left leg. They often come with $40k expense reports from business trips in developing countries (guess why); forget plug in big numbers in multi-million budgets where it’s their responsibility and then pout like spoilt babies or try to pretend it’s not their project, when it’s brought to the attention of HR.
Just like at home - women have to pick up their dirty socks at work

[Anonymous]

To PP: No, these senior male managers don’t do a great job. I require zero supervision and can do my job with a left leg. They often come with $40k expense reports from business trips in developing countries (guess why); forget plug in big numbers in multi-million budgets where it’s their responsibility and then pout like spoilt babies or try to pretend it’s not their project, when it’s brought to the attention of HR.
Just like at home - women have to pick up their dirty socks at work

[Anonymous]

A much more obvious explanation for the wage gap:

There are a lot of women that *like* being married to a high earning man that handles the money so they can downshift and choose a job with low hours, flexibility and interesting work.

Ask me how I know.