Long Way to Go -- Limited science, Over-reaching Conclusions in NYT article on gender gap in pay equity
While not on Hlwd or filmmaking, this is an interesting article dealing with the glass ceiling and NYC. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/nyregion/03women.html
Unfortunately, it is similar to much of the gender-related issue reporting in the NYT -- reflecting a cluelessness in a reaching for sensationalist conclusions. The science of this study is limited; and its conclusions, extremely limited. And yet, the NYT reports sweeping generalizations about gender equity. It's depressing, really. The NYT (as in the usual parenting-issues or working-woman-issues reporting they do) does not typically discuss or acknowledge the complexity of the wide picture (i.e. they typically talk about mothers only when regarding parenting issues including nannies, school responsibilities, etc. The obvious reporter question to ask would be: Where are the dads in all this? But that is overlooked somehow.). Anyway, here are some bits of the article that I think are key in evaluating the data and what it means. (below) At least this shows some hope for a TINY bit of progress. However, the article seems to whitewash the major and very real problem that women face in the workplace of the glass ceiling or wall. These barriers can be subtle -- a tone of dismissiveness, a lack of being taken seriously, a lack of credit, a sense of double-standard for the same behavior (different labels for that behavior), an inability to get hired or paid as much as men... A major point: this article does not underscoring the fact that the wage gap will plummet in favor or men in their 30s+. So, we can draw the conclusion that for 1/5 or less of an educated woman in NYC's life, she may make as much or more than her male colleagues for equal work (depending on her neighborhood), but then will spend the major earning years of her life -- 4/5 to 5/6 of it -- making less (and proportionately less and less as raises occur). Major bummer.- Economists consider it striking because the wage gap between men and women nationally has narrowed more slowly and has even widened in recent years among one part of that group: college-educated women in their 20s. But in New York, young college-educated women’s wages as a percentage of men’s rose slightly between 2000 and 2005.
- “Citified college-women are more likely to be nonmarried and childless, compared with their suburban sisters, so they can and do devote themselves to their careers,”
- In 2005, 53 percent of women in their 20s working in New York were college graduates, compared with only 38 percent of men of that age. -- the science is about a select group in NYC and large cities only, yet the article is written to imply women are now making more across the board. Even the comments section says, "Has the glass-ceiling disappeared?" -- what a conclusion to draw from a tiny sample group! The NYT can be so shockingly thick-headed and un-self-aware sometimes regarding gender issues.
- New York may also be more attractive to college-educated women, some experts said, because many jobs in the city pay higher salaries than similar ones elsewhere in the country.
- Typically, women have fallen further behind men in earnings as they get older.
- In New York, the pay gap between men and women varied by borough, profession, race and ethnicity, the analysis found... Among Manhattanites, the median wage for workers in their 20s was $46,859 for men and $45,840 for women. NOTE: this means women in their 20s earn LESS than men in Manhattan. That's a pretty major statistic basically overlooked by the article.
- “It seems that women tend to take less time off between college and law school, and therefore become more senior, and, hence, make more money, at a younger age,” she said. “I would, of course, like to think that means that women know what they want sooner than men. But it probably has more to do with the unfortunate fact that women need to keep in mind biological time constraints and feel a great deal of pressure to build an entire career before refocusing on marriage and children.”
- Also note, it's partially because men's salaries have fallen: men were in some ways moving backward. Among all men — including those with college degrees — real wages, adjusted for inflation, have declined since 1970. And among full-time workers with advanced degrees, wages for men increased only marginally even as they soared for women. Nationally, men’s wages in general declined while women’s remained the same.
Here are some interesting comments from readers on the science: (sadly, many comments by readers were misogynistic and vitriolic -- not exactly the way to come to a better place).
This article is really misleading. This research doesn’t signal a departure from the wage gap between men and women. If urban women tend to be better educated than urban men, then of course they’ll be earning more. To meaningfully evaluate the wage gap, you have to compare men and women living in the same area, with similar educational and professional experiences.
What is more revealing is that nationally the median wage earned by men is still greater than women – this in spite of the fact that a larger percentage of women than men have higher education. Maybe what this means is that urban employers are more likely than employers elsewhere to equitably compensate women for their educational backgrounds. However, nationally, on average, women still earn less in spite of better educational qualifications.
The graphic is illogical and incorrect. How can all the different racial subsets (women as a percent of men’s income) be under 108%, whilst the combined entity is over 117%. The math does not make sense at all.
The published figure (provided by A. Beveridge) appears to be erroneous somewhere.
On the New York City Salaries side, the top bar charts are supposed to reflect some weighted average of the ethnic components. Presumably the weighting is meant to reflect the fractional population of each group.
Given the figures of the ethnically arranged female wage (fraction of male wage): 100% (asian); 107% (black); 108% (hispanic); 89% (white), I’m puzzled how these components can be weighted to yield 117% overall.
there must be an error, either in the data or in this figure.
Where women hit the glass ceiling is later in their careers when advancement and promotion become the issue. This is where subjectiveness and bias come into play. Whereas personal choices may have an impact on some, for many of us it is a matter of not being a white male in a while male dominated workplace. Like promotes like. Many of us who are considered accomplished, smart, experienced know that it is more than being qualified or even better qualified to move ahead to the upper echelons of our field. We watch lesser male lights get opportunities that we don’t get. It’s subtle discrimination that is played out over and over again within workplaces. When you are a male in a field where men are the leaders, who may have a wife who stays at home and caters to your every need, your expectation, your world view is that women ought to behave that way or want to behave that way and so subliminally these men in positions of power will give men opportunies that lead to advancent, will promote men over women who may be better even qualified. Until attitudes about women change, it will be difficult to overcome this hurdle.
