In the war on women, men are losing.

[pappyjohn99]

www.aei-ideas.org/2014/10/women-earned-majority-of-doctoral-degrees-in-2013-for-5th-straight-year-and-outnumber-men-in-grad-school-137-5-to-100/?utm_source=aei&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=100114

Women earned majority of doctoral degrees in 2013 for 5th straight year, and outnumber men in grad school 137.5 to 100

[billisonboard]

Are PhDs Profitable?

[pappyjohn99]

I wil start by saying that I don't think that this is a bad trend, it was an observation I thought I would share. But consider the numbers game. If women are getting degrees at a rate that is nearly 40% higher then men and there are only so many jobs to fill it should only be a matter of time until the workforce reflects the graduation rates. As these women gain market share the pay disparity should evaporate. I don't believe there is any need for legislative action when a trend is moving in a direction that will accomplish a desired result.

IMO we have more that enough laws and would benefit greatly from a couple legislative sessions that would do nothing but old, unnecessary laws off the books. 

[Tennesseer]

PHD degrees are far more common in the U.S. than Bachelor's ot Master's degrees.  

[The Captain]

Oct 2, 2014 0:58:59 GMT -5 pappyjohn99 said:

I wil start by saying that I don't think that this is a bad trend, it was an observation I thought I would share. But consider the numbers game. If women are getting degrees at a rate that is nearly 40% higher then men and there are only so many jobs to fill it should only be a matter of time until the workforce reflects the graduation rates. As these women gain market share the pay disparity should evaporate. I don't believe there is any need for legislative action when a trend is moving in a direction that will accomplish a desired result.

IMO we have more that enough laws and would benefit greatly from a couple legislative sessions that would do nothing but old, unnecessary laws off the books. 

You actually have to look deeper into the numbers.  The article (surprisingly!) did a good job of breaking down the degress by field.  The women are getting advanced degrees at disproportional rates in fields that pay less.

All that aside, that does nothing to address the issue of equal pay for equal work.  No, we are not there yet.  The fact that women constitute about 60% of the gender representation in my field yet are represented at a rate of 1/2 of men in top management speaks to that.  This is documented even with equal degress, experience, and hours worked.  Chart 7 of 13 in particular stands out in this respect.


www.accountingtoday.com/gallery/Gender-Gap-Accounting-Salaries-67640-1.html

[Tennesseer]

No need to old, unnecessary laws off the books yet, pappyjohn99.  There is still a long way to go.

[djAdvocate]

to paraphrase another poster here: this one rates a "don't give a f(*k" to me.  i am happy for women getting more higher degrees.  good for them.

edit: this has nothing to do with pay disparity IN THE SAME FIELDS, however.  just to be clear.

[pappyjohn99]

Captain, no we are not there yet but from chart we can see that women in middle management and entry level are outnumbering men. With time, I expect that those trends will continue into the senior and top levels.

From your article-

Women participants in the survey were, on average, three years younger than men, 5 percent less likely to hold an advanced degree, 9 percent less likely to hold a certification, and less experienced than men in the field in their current position and with their employer. These differences are similar to last year, though men are two years older and have two years more experience than reported in 2011.

Could these fact be relevant to compensation? I am inclined to think so. With women gaining more degrees and becoming more likely to move into positions that open up as older men retire I expect that things will equalize and then the situation will reverse.

"The professional opportunities for women accountants are very strong. In my accounting classes, women now outnumber men. It wouldn't surprise me to see the salary gap close very rapidly in the next three to five years."
--Kristine Brands, CMA, assistant professor at Regis University, member of the IMA Global Board of Directors

This is on par with my reasoning.

[pappyjohn99]

Tenn-

No need to old, unnecessary laws off the books yet, pappyjohn99. There is still a long way to go.

This really rates a thread of it's own, but OK.

www.stupidlaws.com

[pappyjohn99]

Dj, I was not as eloquent as the poster you paraphrase, but I did state that I did not think this was a bad thing. 

[Tennesseer]

Oct 2, 2014 11:22:06 GMT -5 pappyjohn99 said:

Tenn-

No need to old, unnecessary laws off the books yet, pappyjohn99. There is still a long way to go.

This really rates a thread of it's own, but OK.

www.stupidlaws.com

We did the stupid laws thing as part of a recent thread not to long ago.

I assumed you were posting about dumping unnecessary laws as they pertained to federal and state laws regarding equal pay discrimination. I guess you were not.

[pappyjohn99]

I missed the stupid law thread. I am interested. Would you be so kind as to post a link? 

There are many reasons that persons in the same field will have pay disparity. I believe that gender is only slightly a factor. An example from my own life. My very favorite person in the whole would is a woman in her thirties. I am a man in my fifties. For a time, we held the same position. Same job, same duties, same desk. Yet, the year we worked in this position I earned $12,000 more. Obvious pay disparity right? Or were there other factors? Any guesses?

[Tennesseer]

Oct 2, 2014 11:54:16 GMT -5 pappyjohn99 said:

I missed the stupid law thread. I am interested. Would you be so kind as to post a link? 

There are many reasons that persons in the same field will have pay disparity. I believe that gender is only slightly a factor. An example from my own life. My very favorite person in the whole would is a woman in her thirties. I am a man in my fifties. For a time, we held the same position. Same job, same duties, same desk. Yet, the year we worked in this position I earned $12,000 more. Obvious pay disparity right? Or were there other factors? Any guesses?

It was not a thread solely dedicated stupid laws. Just a couple of several state's stupid laws still on the books.

I was in HR for many years. I know there are a number of reasons why in your example, including credentials and educational background at time of original hire, hire date within the company (seniority), promotions and the increase of base salary that goes along with them, merit increases based upon overal performance within any one particular job, etc., etc., etc.

[pappyjohn99]

Indeed. But the true reason is much more simple. I worked every hour of overtime that was offered. Including time that my dear friend didn't want. I was simply on the job more than she. Yet, this is something we rarely hear about when the so called " War on Women" is discussed. People could point at the difference in earnings without considering all the factors and shout that there is a great wrong here and should be addressed with some new law. Such laws are often unnessary and likely to have drastic unintended consequences.

[Tennesseer]

Oct 2, 2014 12:18:49 GMT -5 pappyjohn99 said:

Indeed. But the true reason is much more simple. I worked every hour of overtime that was offered. Including time that my dear friend didn't want. I was simply on the job more than she. Yet, this is something we rarely hear about when the so called " War on Women" is discussed. People could point at the difference in earnings without considering all the factors and shout that there is a great wrong here and should be addressed with some new law. Such laws are often unnessary and likely to have drastic unintended consequences.

So your $12,000 was based upon overtime pay-were you both hourly employees or exempt employees eligible for overtime pay?. How about the base pay for both of you? Was the base pay the exact same for each of you? Did your overtime pay go toward a higher merit increase the next time increases were doled out? Probably not as overtime is simply overtime.

I may be mistaken but overtime pay is not the issue regarding unequal wages for equal work. It is the base pay that is the question/issue.

[pappyjohn99]

OK, I should have said largely rather than simply. My bad. 

We were nonexempt employees eligible for overtime pay. Base pay was identical. She was on the first shift, I on the third. I received a 30 cent per hour shift preference. No bonus or merit pay. Vacation pay determined as a percentage of pay earned in the previous year. 

I may be mistaken but overtime pay is not the issue regarding unequal wages for equal work. It is the base pay that is the question/issue.

A point I would make is that it is a fact that is rarely brought up when pay disparity is discussed. Those who wish to make an issue of pay disparity look at annual earnings, see a difference, and proclaim that "There otta be a law!". They fail to share the fact that many of these differences are reasonble due to factors that are easily explained. 

[Tennesseer]

Oct 2, 2014 13:05:16 GMT -5 pappyjohn99 said:

OK, I should have said largely rather than simply. My bad. 

We were nonexempt employees eligible for overtime pay. Base pay was identical. She was on the first shift, I on the third. I received a 30 cent per hour shift preference. No bonus or merit pay. Vacation pay determined as a percentage of pay earned in the previous year. 

I may be mistaken but overtime pay is not the issue regarding unequal wages for equal work. It is the base pay that is the question/issue.

A point I would make is that it is a fact that is rarely brought up when pay disparity is discussed. Those who wish to make an issue of pay disparity look at annual earnings, see a difference, and proclaim that "There otta be a law!". They fail to share the fact that many of these differences are reasonble due to factors that are easily explained. 

Again-overtime is not the issue. There are many variable in annual earnings. It is base pay that is the issue. Do you think mid and upper-level manaagers along with the company executives get ovetime pay for working more than 40 hours a week?

Stick with the base pay issue. That is where the issue lies.

[The Captain]

Oct 2, 2014 12:18:49 GMT -5 pappyjohn99 said:

Indeed. But the true reason is much more simple. I worked every hour of overtime that was offered. Including time that my dear friend didn't want. I was simply on the job more than she. Yet, this is something we rarely hear about when the so called " War on Women" is discussed. People could point at the difference in earnings without considering all the factors and shout that there is a great wrong here and should be addressed with some new law. Such laws are often unnessary and likely to have drastic unintended consequences.

You and I are not that far apart in age.

I also work to get the job done, I don't get offered OT - I'm on salary.  Came up with ideas and presented them to management and was told they were not practical.  A few months later a man is hired over me and asks me for ideas on how the function can be improved.  I tell him my ideas, he takes them to management as his own, and suddenly they are brilliant and genius!

One idea saved the company - ready  - over a million a year.  He get's a huge raise, options, etc.  Then proceeds to work on getting me fired so his fraud is not discovered (there were a few other people in the company who knew it was my idea).  I have a family to support, can't afford a lawsuit, so I find another job and leave.

In hindsight could I have handled it better?  Maybe.  But I will NEVER forget that the exact same idea was given more consideration when presented by a man as opposed to a woman.

I have been in a room full of men at a management meeting and been asked to take notes because, umm, my handwriting is better - obviously they've never seen my handwriting.

Just as little as 10 years ago I was told I wasn't considered for an overseas assignment because I just had a kid and would likely have to spend more time on family obligations.  Funny, the married man with two kids who was reassigned didn't hear the same thing.

You are kidding youself if you believe gender, and gender alone, does not contribute to pay inequality.

[pappyjohn99]

OK. From the link I posted, women are earning degrees at a rate that is 37% higher then men. With a fact such as this would you expect women to move into the workforce in a similar ratio? I think this will happen. As it does, women's pay will increase or men's pay will decrease until parity is reached. Experience, merit, seniority, and such will strike a balance. Perhaps even tilt in the favor of women. Do we need legislation to make this happen when trends indicate it is coming anyway?

[pappyjohn99]

Captain- Clearly you were treated unjustly. You have my sympathies. Had you the means, I expect that you may have found relief in the courts. I suspect that existing laws were broken.

If you would, consider how you might craft new legislation to prevent what happened to you from happening to a woman in a similar situation. I would be interested in your thoughts.

[vonna]

I think it is hard not to take personal experience into account. And just as The Captain has very real and personal experience to feel the way she does, I have experiences that make me feel women have broken a LOT of barriers.

My personal professional achievement is decent, but not all that impressive. I was able to retire as an O-5 after 20 years in the military. Usually the highest rank that can be achieved in that timeframe, though there are always exceptions . . . but I chose to do a big fat nothing professionally afterwards, and chose to retire and not pursue another career.

But when I think of my female friends/acquaintances,  there are some amazing professional accomplishments. 

- One close friend also retired in 2006 as a Navy Commander, and is now a Vice President of a major corporation.  She makes over 7 figures a year once you count her bonus and stock options.

-Another close friend is now a one star General (Air Force). I wouldn't be surprised if she continues to at least 3 star.

-Another was a GS-15 by the age of 40, and left government service to work from home as a contractor. She gave up a lot of pay, but is happy.

-I have several friends that went into law --  one served as the president of the bar in her very large metropolitan area, and the other two have built impressive careers around raising their families.

- One high school friend I can think of, perhaps one the smartest and most driven people I have known, works for a major accounting firm, and continues to climb the ladder.

-There are so many more I could list!

On the other hand, I have good friends that have chosen not to pursue careers, or, like me retired early.  But, to my knowledge, it was personal choice, and not forced.

So, I do think the workforce is changing.  That does not mean that things like what happened to The Captain still don't happen.  I don't know if prejudice and bigotry will ever completely be ended, regardless of what the target is.

[Tennesseer]

Oct 2, 2014 14:26:27 GMT -5 vonna said:

I think it is hard not to take personal experience into account. And just as The Captain has very real and personal experience to feel the way she does, I have experiences that make me feel women have broken a LOT of barriers.

My personal professional achievement is decent, but not all that impressive. I was able to retire as an O-5 after 20 years in the military. Usually the highest rank that can be achieved in that timeframe, though there are always exceptions . . . but I chose to do a big fat nothing professionally afterwards, and chose to retire and not pursue another career.

But when I think of my female friends/acquaintances,  there are some amazing professional accomplishments. 

- One close friend also retired in 2006 as a Navy Commander, and is now a Vice President of a major corporation.  She makes over 7 figures a year once you count her bonus and stock options.

-Another close friend is now a one star General (Air Force). I wouldn't be surprised if she continues to at least 3 star.

-Another was a GS-15 by the age of 40, and left government service to work from home as a contractor. She gave up a lot of pay, but is happy.

-I have several friends that went into law --  one served as the president of the bar in her very large metropolitan area, and the other two have built impressive careers around raising their families.

- One high school friend I can think of, perhaps one the smartest and most driven people I have known, works for a major accounting firm, and continues to climb the ladder.

-There are so many more I could list!

On the other hand, I have good friends that have chosen not to pursue careers, or, like me retired early.  But, to my knowledge, it was personal choice, and not forced.

So, I do think the workforce is changing.  That does not mean that things like what happened to The Captain still don't happen.  I don't know if prejudice and bigotry will ever completely be ended, regardless of what the target is.

Vonna-three of your examples are military. It is in the military's best interest not to short change their female members. Your other examples are good but not extraordinary.

Pappyjohn keeps saying women are getting the majority of PHD degrees today. But the areas of study where these PHDs were earned are not in your typical high income areas.

Let's take a look at female CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. Today, 24 women are the CEOs of a fortune 500 company. That equates to 4.8% of the Fortune 500 compannies are headed by women. That is the highest it has ever been for female CEOs of major corporations. Yet women have been in the lower executive ranks for years.

Fortune 500 Women CEOs

If you look at the Fortune 1000 companies, the perecentage changes very little. There are 53 women or 5.3%. Again, women have been in the lower executive ranks for years.

Fortune 1000 Women as CEOs

Women are more than able to hold their own at the highest levels of management. But for some reason, the ultimate reward for many deserving women eludes them.

[pappyjohn99]

Tenn- you seem to be missing my point. I often hear on the news from people with an agenda that there is a "War on Women". I wish to dispute that. Or if there is this war being waged men are losing ground at a rapid rate. In keeping with the war theme let's expand our view.

Let's call persons with higher degrees officers. They are the people who will control the battlefield. Men are being out produced by a nearly 40% factor. Not a good prospect for any army. We've been dicussing this.

College grads with lesser degrees. Lets call them NCO's and look at some information.

www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/06/womens-college-enrollment-gains-leave-men-behind/

Women’s college enrollment gains leave men behind.

Lots of interesting information in that link. Much of it broken down by ethnicity if you are interested. The bottom line is that women are going to college at ever increasing rates as men remain stagnant or lose ground.

Let's then look at the laborforce and call them soldiers.

www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/Qf-laborforce-10.htm

Women comprised 47 percent of the total U.S. labor force. 

Women are projected to account for 51 percent of the increase in total labor force growth between 2008 and 2018.

The unemployment rate for all women was 8.6 percent and for men it was 10.5 percent.

So things are roughly equal and will remain that way.

Finally, how about weapons. Let's consider this.

www.politico.com/story/2014/05/women-small-business-owners-106766.html

Women are starting companies at a torrid pace. Between 1997 and 2014, the number of women-owned businesses in the U.S. rose by 68 percent, twice the growth rate for men and nearly one and a-half times the rate for all companies, according to an American Express analysis of Census Bureau figures. They are starting an estimated 1,288 companies each day, up from 602 in 2011-12, American Express says.

Wow, so if women are unhappy in the boys club that treats them so badly there are good odds that they could get employment with a woman that supposedly would treat them right.

It ain't looking good for the men folk out there.

[The Captain]

Oct 2, 2014 13:49:25 GMT -5 pappyjohn99 said:

Captain- Clearly you were treated unjustly. You have my sympathies. Had you the means, I expect that you may have found relief in the courts. I suspect that existing laws were broken.

If you would, consider how you might craft new legislation to prevent what happened to you from happening to a woman in a similar situation. I would be interested in your thoughts.

Meh.  I don't get mad...

I am now further advanced in my career then mr what's your idea is mine ever went.  At some point people will be recognized for what they truly can and cannot bring to the table.

However, I achieved my current level probably 7-8 years later in my career than I would have if I'd been born male IMHO.  As far as legislation - go ahead - prove I was discriminated against.

The argument could be that he was an equal asshole to everyone and stole ideas equally from both men and women.  Or the company could say he presented the idea in a more well reasoned and professional manner.  

In all fairness the guys on the board would tell you I should never have given up on my idea and kept pressing mgmt until they really listened - and you know what - there may be some truth in that.  I found that once I got much more assertive bitchy suddenly my level of (perceived) competence went up.  Sucks but men and women do think differently.  How much THAT has an impact on pay I'd love to be able to figure out.  

[pappyjohn99]

You may be asking youself so what? As dj said- "Good for them."

In the coming months and years as 2016 approaches I expect to hear plenty about a war on women. Take that idiot Debbie Waserman Schultz as an example. I say: " You know what Deb, it's a mighty effing big mountain with room enough for us all."

Or as some children of the 70's posted on bumper stickers-

What if they had a war and nobody came?

[pappyjohn99]

Good for you Captain. Things have a way of working out I've found. Not as we may have expected, but usually well enough.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Oct 2, 2014 7:12:16 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

No need to old, unnecessary laws off the books yet, pappyjohn99.  There is still a long way to go.

Which is kind of an example of the issue.  When the ratios were reversed, there was a "need" to get more women in higher degrees...so there have been many programs to get more women in higher education...which isn't a bad thing.  The bad thing is that the trend will continue to grow, and people say things like "there is still a long way to go" and we need to keep doing what we are doing.  Of course numbers don't always mean what they say...but the pure hypocrisy on the subject is pretty hard to ignore. 

[Tiny]

Wow, so if women are unhappy in the boys club that treats them so badly there are good odds that they could get employment with a woman that supposedly would treat them right.

It ain't looking good for the men folk out there.

I think you are making an assumption that once there are enough women with experience/small business the people in control (men) will allow women into the upper ranks of the Boys Club OR that the Boys Club will become the Boys and Girls Club or maybe just the Person in Power Club.

If the Boys Club doesn't change or morph into something else - even if women are business owners etc - there will simply be TWO clubs. The Boys Club and the Girls Club. Odds are the Boys Club will still control the more established powerful positions in business/government/whatever. The Girls Club may outnumber those in the Boys Club but there will still be inequalities.

We've already kinda got that - jobs that use to be 'men's work' that became 'women's work' lost their cache, power, and income. That division/expectations can easily happen if it goes to a Girls vs Boys Club.