AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (13 comments)

  1. Benjamin Cole

    I enjoy these posts on the real world, when it comes to men.

    But, if you are an average guy in the USA, you already know the truth: Your role in life is to get crapped on, by women, bosses, governments, rich people.

    Get a toilet seat halo, and get used to it.

  2. I get that young, single men may make less than young, single women. However, does that data show that this trend will continue as young men and women now advance through the workplace in to their 30s, 40s, 50s, etc? That’s what I would like to see.

  3. This blog post is sleezy. It roundly criticizes Equal Pay Day for failing to control for variables beyond gender when looking at wages, and then it goes on to cite a study that did not control for education. The blogger implies that instead some sort of bias against men is to blame for the wage gap among young, unmarried, urban-dwellers.

    As the Time article to which the blogger links states, the researcher who completed this study, James Chung, attributes the difference between men’s and women’s pay to differences in education. Let me save you the trouble of following the link by citing it here:

    “The figures come from James Chung of Reach Advisors, who has spent more than a year analyzing data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. He attributes the earnings reversal overwhelmingly to one factor: education. For every two guys who graduate from college or get a higher degree, three women do. This is almost the exact opposite of the graduation ratio that existed when the baby boomers entered college. Studies have consistently shown that a college degree pays off in much higher wages over a lifetime, and even in many cases for entry-level positions. “These women haven’t just caught up with the guys,” says Chung. “In many cities, they’re clocking them.”

    1. Yes it was intentionally meant to be a “sleazy” – or let’s say it was meant to be a “satirical” or “tongue in cheek” post, to poke fun at “Equal Pay Day.”

      Of course, there are reasons that single young women earn more than men on average – they are better educated. Once we control for education, there would likely be wage parity for that group, and there would be no wage gap to justify a “Equal Pay Day for Young, Single Men.” Likewise, if we control for all relevant variables for all men and women, there would be NO wage gap that would justify “Equal Pay Day.”

      1. Damn your logic Mark. You are destroying the very foundation an entire generation of women have clinged to. Without being able to blame ‘teh patriarchy’, gasp, these women might actually have to look in the mirror to discover the cause of all their ills. That must not happen, or those who pull the ‘it is all the mens fault’ strings might just find the soapboxes they spout hate from crumble!

      2. I commented on the post specifically because it attracted the first comment seen here–one that says that women are oppressing men.

        I’m sure it’s true that controlling for certain variables (eg: career choice, hours worked per week) would explain much of the wage gap between men and women. Todd’s comment presupposes that I blame “teh patriarchy” and that I am in denial about the cause of “[women's] ills.” It’s easy to pressuppose that all critics of a blog post such as this are harpy feminists, but it’s quite off base. I’m a social scientist. I’m not interested in blaming men, or defending women, but rather in the social science. I thought that this blog post did a disservice to the study by failing to explain the social science behind the results of James Chung’s study.

        1. Laura: “I commented on the post specifically because it attracted the first comment seen here–one that says that women are oppressing men.

          You are probably unaware that the author of the first comment isn’t taken seriously by other readers here. for the most part he is ignored.

        2. The standard, cultural-determinist social-science model is seriously flawed. It’s serves only a sickening, political purpose.

          One of the most recent and entertaining works on the subject was broadcasted in 2010, produced by Harald Eia of Norway and aptly titled “Hjernevask” (“Brainwashing”). His series drove a nail into the antiquated social-science coffin, which resulted in the defunding and closure of the Nordic Gender Institute (NIKK), previously known as the Nordic Institute for Women’s Studies and Gender Research.

          True science prevails!

          1. Although funny, stop with the stabs. This well done article touches the surface of our changing paradigm.

            -The traditionally accepted “gender gap” is skewed to the feminist favor.

            -Workplaces want to make money. To do so, they will hire the best person for a job. Male or female does not matter in a bosses decision, but circumstances do matter. (i.e. single mother vs single man)

            -Men are more “ADD” then women. Today’s higher paying positions favor the woman’s natural aptitudes. Men are physical and less likely to be able to sit at a desk. Women are more studious and tend to follow directions more often.

            -Today’s men are not living as their fathers did, and that is hard for men to swallow, especially if their breadwinning wife starts calling the shots. Even if she is not, he very well could feel that way.

            -It is time for society to not only accept these men, but to value them. Our societies will continue to incline criminally, and decline socially and culturally if we do not.

  4. It’s interesting to note that among hot young women like the one pictured above, there is a 0% unemployment rate.

  5. Actually, when you control for education and race men outearn women by a strong margin. Sociologist Philip Cohen went through the data (check his blog, he is a brilliant social scientist).

    The reason is that inner cities have a high proportion of uneducated (4 year college) black/latino men and a high proportion of college educated white women. White men with 4 year college edu outearn their female equivalents significantly (even when controlling for hours worked/overtime).

    Do not be sloppy with data, Mark.

    1. College educated white women prefer living in the inner city? Who knew?

      White men with 4 year college edu outearn their female equivalents significantly (even when controlling for hours worked/overtime).

      1. What happens when you control for married/unmarried children/no children and continuous years in the workplace for men and women with otherwise equal qualifications?

      2. Do you believe that legislation can eliminate gender bias?

      3. Do you believe that, considering how important labor costs are to the bottom line of any business, if women are in every way as equally valuable to an employer as their male counterparts, and yet will work for less, there is any reason for an employer to hire men at all?

      In other words, if I can hire men for $10/hr and equally capable, hard-working, and valuable women for $8/hr, why would I hire any men at all? In fact why wouldn’t I fire all the men and replace them with women? My bias would have to be really strong for me to take a $2/hr direct hit to my bottom line in order to indulge my preference for male workers.

      If I’m required by law to pay men and women equally, then my bias costs me nothing, and I can discriminate as much as I wish.

      It is apparent from his blog, credentials, writing, and references to other sites that your hero Philip Cohen begins with the premise that there is inequality in all things due to discrimination, and then works hard to show that there can’t be any other explanation. Try some other “experts” for a wider viewpoint. You owe it to yourself.

      1. Dr. Thomas Sowell explains this very well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_sGn6PdmIo

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content