Why women are out-earning men(postcards.blogs.fortune.cnn.com)
postcards.blogs.fortune.cnn.com
Why women are out-earning men
http://postcards.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/03/16/richer-sex-time-mundy/?iid=SF_F_River
6 comments
It is also fair to say, that jobs that need men are slowly vanishing. In other words, women are easy to compete for jobs that were only doable by men. For example, trucking, construction, even farming can be done by women, because of automation and advanced tools, that doesn't require much physical strength.
The more automation the higher chances of women to succeed.
However, automation itself is dominated by men. tech industry is an example. Future may be better for men, where their only job may be to fight wars or relax.
The more automation the higher chances of women to succeed.
However, automation itself is dominated by men. tech industry is an example. Future may be better for men, where their only job may be to fight wars or relax.
Honestly I'd say that if this is true in some industries yet not in others, this is more of a "the genders are becoming economically equal" story than the headline implies.
Wow, that is some tasty link-bait, nicely done CNN.
Considering that the article goes on to disprove its own headline - eg it says women are NOT out-earning men, but MIGHT sometime this decade with their specialized data set - I call "flag".
And then we've got some gems from the article :
"Mundy's research shows that women are out-earning men all around."
Thank goodness for Mundy - because 143 of 144 articles referenced in Wikipedia on this subject are showing completely opposite data:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disp...
Or alternatively a nice display built on the Census Bureau's data:
http://www.pay-equity.org/info-time.html
This is a PR factory article, designed to sell copies of a book by being contrarian, glad that our media (and HN voters) are picking it up and republishing as truth!
Considering that the article goes on to disprove its own headline - eg it says women are NOT out-earning men, but MIGHT sometime this decade with their specialized data set - I call "flag".
And then we've got some gems from the article :
"Mundy's research shows that women are out-earning men all around."
Thank goodness for Mundy - because 143 of 144 articles referenced in Wikipedia on this subject are showing completely opposite data:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disp...
Or alternatively a nice display built on the Census Bureau's data:
http://www.pay-equity.org/info-time.html
This is a PR factory article, designed to sell copies of a book by being contrarian, glad that our media (and HN voters) are picking it up and republishing as truth!
...it states their classifying woman as "childless women" which likely skews their results dramatically. e.g. filtering out all the low/0 earning women but including the low earning men.
It's bound to happen given the collapse of industrial America (blue collar unemployment among men has skyrocketed). Not to mention the way that women are out-graduating men in almost every respect (high school and college).
Women dominate jobs such as nursing, healthcare and education; which compared to manufacturing have done very well. America has lost half of its manufacturing jobs since the mid to late 1990s.
Seems like even the fastfood jobs are dominated by young women. Step into a Dairy Queen and it's all women. Sometimes it seems like the young guys won't take a job if it's not up to expectations.
The outlier male earners are the only thing even keeping the ratios separate at this point.
Women dominate jobs such as nursing, healthcare and education; which compared to manufacturing have done very well. America has lost half of its manufacturing jobs since the mid to late 1990s.
Seems like even the fastfood jobs are dominated by young women. Step into a Dairy Queen and it's all women. Sometimes it seems like the young guys won't take a job if it's not up to expectations.
The outlier male earners are the only thing even keeping the ratios separate at this point.
It's no secret that women are evolutionarily wired to respond to confidence, and traditionally a man's confidence is rooted in his ability to provide for women.
The net effect is that the men who think logically and cannot cultivate a sense of confidence without a logical reason for doing so (and this tends to be intellectuals) will find it far more difficult to attract women.
One can only hope we evolve into a society that doesn't constantly badger men with the idea that they need to be rich and successful to attract women (essentially being an amazing provider), because aligning with these beliefs will only make it more difficult in an era where women are significantly out-earning men