Preference for the Workplace, Human Capital, and Gender

National Bureau of Economic Research ^ | Matthew Wiswall and Basit Zafar

[reaganaut1]

In this paper, we use a hypothetical choice methodology to robustly estimate preferences for workplace attributes and quantify how much these preferences influence pre-labor market human capital investments. Undergraduate students are presented with sets of job offers that vary in their attributes (such as earnings and job hours flexibility) and asked to state their probabilistic choices. We show that this method robustly identifies preferences for various job attributes, free from omitted variable bias and free from considering the equilibrium matching of workers to jobs. While there is substantial heterogeneity in preferences, we find that women on average have a higher willingness to pay for jobs with greater work flexibility (lower hours, and part-time option availability) and job stability (lower risk of job loss), and men have a higher willingness to pay for jobs with higher earnings growth. Using a follow-up survey several years after the experiment, we find a systematic relationship between the respondents' job preferences as revealed during college and the actual workplace characteristics of the jobs these individuals are currently working at after college.

In the second part of the paper, we relate these job attribute preferences to major choice. Using data on students' perceptions about the demand side of the labor market--beliefs about expected attributes of jobs students anticipate being offered if they were to complete particular majors--we find that students perceive jobs offered to Humanities majors to have fewer hours, more work-time flexibility, and higher stability than jobs offered to Economics/Business majors. These job attributes are found to play a role in major choice, with women exhibiting greater sensitivity to non-pecuniary job attributes in major choice.

[reaganaut1]

Hillary and other Democrats tell the lie that women earn much less than men because of discrimination. If this were true, employers would be leaving money on the table by not hiring more women.

This academic article explains that the sexes are not evaluating jobs in the same way, and that women are willing to trade off lower pay for more flexibility and stability. It's almost as if women think about how they will combine a career and a family. That should be outlawed. /s

[equaviator]

Sounds like a lot of HR talking points hooey.

[dsrtsage]

Women earn less than men because a womans work is never done

[MichaelCorleone]

“Hillary and other Democrats tell the lie that women earn much less than men because of discrimination. If this were true, employers would be leaving money on the table by not hiring more women.”

True. I frequently point out that if this really was the case, the lawyers would be all over it for a huge payday. But I’ve never seen any lawsuits even filed, much less awards for discrimination given.

The fact that women in general allow the lie to go on is troubling in itself.

[Nervous Tick]

>> a womans work is never done

So you’re saying women are inefficient? ;-)

[kevslisababy]

We are never done because there is ALWAYS room for improvement:)

[wbill]

the sexes are not evaluating jobs in the same way, and that women are willing to trade off lower pay for more flexibility and stability.

Waitaminute..... there will be NO rational discourse on such a subject, because everyone knows that women are paid slave wages for all the value that they bring to the table, while the men in charge grin and laugh maniacally while spending their obscene profits on scotch and cigars.

At least that what we do at our business. Not sure how yours handles it. ;-)

[kearnyirish2]

Here in NJ this has been turned on its head, as teachers’ unions have arranged huge salaries for primarily women in low-risk, part-time (practically seasonal) jobs with no performance metrics.