Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In the big city, paychecks of young women outpace men's
New york Times ^ | Aug 3, 2007 | Staff

Posted on 08/03/2007 2:17:56 PM PDT by DeweyCA

Young women in New York, Dallas, Minneapolis, Chicago, Boston and a few other of the nation's largest cities who work full time have forged ahead of men in wages, according to an analysis of 2005 census data.

-Snip-

The study by Queens College demographer Andrew A. Beveridge shows that all women from ages 21 to 30 living in New York City and working full time made 117 percent of men's wages, or a median wage of $35,653, and even more in Dallas, 120 percent.

-Snip-

Also, many of those women are not marrying right after college, leaving them freer to focus on building careers, experts said.

-Snip-

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.

(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: aa; affirmativeaction; cities; discrimination; gendergap; urban; wagegap; wages
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last
Gee, do you think that the media will now start clamoring for affirmative action for men? Don't hold your breath. This is what Dr. Thomas Sowell and Dr. Walter Williams have constantly said. Any "wage gap" is caused by women taking off for family or choosing different types of careers. When those variables are taken into account, there is no "wage gap" between the sexes. It's just more lies from the feminists and their lying Lib allies, including the media.
1 posted on 08/03/2007 2:18:01 PM PDT by DeweyCA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DeweyCA

I’m sure there will be a hew and cry to right this dreadful situation...particularly in Dallas, where women get 20% more pay than men. There are laws about the majority discriminating against the minority, and college graduate men are definitely a minority these days. We can expect the Dems, those champions of the mistreated everywhere, to take up this battle, can’t we?


2 posted on 08/03/2007 2:29:52 PM PDT by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DeweyCA

You folks already know that this is true. I posted this so that you can have survey evidence of this fact.


3 posted on 08/03/2007 2:30:45 PM PDT by DeweyCA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DeweyCA

Hillary said that women earn less than men for the same job. I think she quoted 75 cents on the dollar, in that neighborhood.

She said the problem was especially bad for “Latinas”.

We can’t let the facts get in the way of someone trying to score their political points can we?


4 posted on 08/03/2007 2:41:48 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

[She said the problem was especially bad for “Latinas”.]

Gosh, I wonder if there isn’t some correlation between the average number of children born to Latinas (as compared to other races) and the amount of time off taken for maternity leave and family emergencies ? Could choosing to have a large family have a negative effect on your career prospects ??

Nah. I’m sure there is no such simple explanation for those statistics.


5 posted on 08/03/2007 2:50:27 PM PDT by Kellis91789 (Liberals aren't atheists. They worship government -- including human sacrifices.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DeweyCA
I work for a very diverse Company, we have had several superstars promoted because they have Breasts, most of them are dumber than a rock. If it wasn't for the support staff, mostly men, the star would not shine.
6 posted on 08/03/2007 3:16:24 PM PDT by Little Bill (Welcome to the Newly Socialist State of New Hampshire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DeweyCA

I’d imagine the gap nationwide will eventually swing that way. More women are going to college now and women generally are doing better in school. I expect that in the next generation wages will be at least as high for them in high paying fields.


7 posted on 08/03/2007 3:34:15 PM PDT by SmoothTalker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DeweyCA

There’s a fast way to reverse this situation.

All us men just sit on our duffs and drink beer. Tell the little ladies to “get back to work” and support us as we apply for welfare.

Along about the time the women driving trucks (yes, they’ll have to drive trucks if we’re all sittin’ on our duffers) need their first truck tires changed, the situation will reverse rather quickly.


8 posted on 08/03/2007 3:38:03 PM PDT by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kellis91789
Ah, typical white, bourgeois Californian putting down large families. ;-)

Thankfully, since AFDC was abolished, women no longer get more money per child on the relief roles.

BTW: 4-5 children is NOT "alot" to this ex-Catholic. If they outbreed the WASPY remnents of old California, so be it!

9 posted on 08/03/2007 3:47:07 PM PDT by Clemenza (Rudy Giuliani, like Pesto and Seattle, belongs in the scrap heap of '90s Culture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DeweyCA

i’d like to see their methodology.

warren farrell, author of “the myth of male power”

was vice president of n.o.w. in the 1970’s until

he wrote this book. n.o.w. attempted to stop the publication of his later books.

a couple of his points, are that married women tend to take jobs closer to schools, limiting their salaries and opportunities.

men in contrast commute further and work longer hours.

professionals who want the big salaries work at least 60 hours per week,

and blue collar men either work overtime or have a second part-time job.

in sum, men work longer hours.


10 posted on 08/03/2007 3:53:47 PM PDT by ken21 (b 4 fred.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DeweyCA

Among all men — including those with college degrees — real wages, adjusted for inflation, have declined since 1970

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I have been called at least seventeen different kinds of an idiot for saying exactly that, I still believe it.


11 posted on 08/03/2007 4:21:09 PM PDT by RipSawyer (Does anybody still believe this is a free country?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza

I have no problem with people wanting large families — I had 5 brothers and sisters myself. My dad had 8 brothers and sisters. WASPs all.

I do have a problem with people pretending that a woman can be a mother to a large family and NOT have it interfere with the value she provides to an employer. That is what they are doing when they insist the employer pay her as much as some other employee without such family demands on her time.

And AFDC may no longer reward additional children, but EITC, FoodStamps, Medicaid, and Child Credits still do. The first child is still the best bang for the buck, though. A minimum wage single woman can benefit $6,000/yr by becoming a single mother. Ain’t it wunnerful ?


12 posted on 08/03/2007 5:00:32 PM PDT by Kellis91789 (Liberals aren't atheists. They worship government -- including human sacrifices.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DeweyCA

Now comes the time for the men to get pregnant and carry the unborn for nine months. Men to give birth and nurse the infants. Oh wait can’t happen.

Oh well we don’t need men, let’s exterminate them, men serve no purpose.


13 posted on 08/03/2007 5:19:46 PM PDT by George from New England
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmoothTalker

“More women are going to college now”

More men by a large percentage have spent years on Ritalin. Very few women on these drugs.


14 posted on 08/03/2007 5:21:17 PM PDT by George from New England
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
BTW: 4-5 children is NOT "alot" to this ex-Catholic. If they outbreed the WASPY remnents of old California, so be it!

Another believer in quantity over quality

15 posted on 08/03/2007 5:24:30 PM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DeweyCA
This is something the bottom of the economy have known for years. Why do you think the really destitute couples have had the woman working and the man sitting home on his butt? It’s not because the woman was stupid or gullible and the man liked being worthless. It’s because at that end of the skills spectrum, women are more valuable to society...(and homos too). Nobody wants a thick necked hairy testosterone reeking big fat male at the front desk. They want him running the place, or chasing the bums away from the dumpsters, or cracking the whip on the subordinates in the back room. If he doesn’t fit that bill, he better have a very specialized technical skill that makes him necessary in spite of his undesirable manliness...or he’s just plain SOL.
16 posted on 08/03/2007 5:42:42 PM PDT by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DeweyCA

I, for one, can’t wait until these ladies start (a) getting hit with alimony decrees, and (b) having fatal coronaries at their desks. Then, and only then, will we have gender equality.


17 posted on 08/03/2007 5:50:57 PM PDT by surely_you_jest (I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. - Will Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kellis91789; dennisw
Well, within my lifetime, we won't have much to worry about. The typical woman in Mexico has 2.6 children. This is down from 6-7 in the mid 1960s.

I think that the big issue in terms of migration by the time I reach my senior years will be from the Muslim world and/or subsaharan Africa, especially as improvements in healthcare reduce infant mortality.

18 posted on 08/03/2007 7:42:58 PM PDT by Clemenza (Rudy Giuliani, like Pesto and Seattle, belongs in the scrap heap of '90s Culture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
Well, within my lifetime, we won't have much to worry about. The typical woman in Mexico has 2.6 children. This is down from 6-7 in the mid 1960s.

Back when Mexican women had the 6 babies you mention illegal immigration was a fraction of what is today
That new lower birthrate obviously has no bearing on Mexicans jamming in here.

On top of that all 3rd world immigrants, legal & illegal, have more babies here than they would at home. They can live off the fat of the land here. There is no welfare in Mexico, Brazil or Colombia

19 posted on 08/04/2007 7:58:51 AM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza

In a post-industrialized society people tend to have only as many children as they can properly educate with the skill sets required for success and without negatively impacting the entire families social standing. These are no small things.

Also, children are no longer seen as a “retirement plan” as they are in harsher economic environments.


20 posted on 08/04/2007 8:03:41 AM PDT by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson