Posted on 01/03/2017 4:27:34 AM PST by expat_panama
Women have been rapidly climbing the employment and wage ladders in recent decades. But only a small fraction have made it to the top rungs — and their progress may be slowing.
New research shows that after making big strides in the 1980s and ’90s, the number of women breaking into the top 1 percent of earners has stalled. Women account for only 16 percent of the 1 percent, a number that has remained essentially flat over the past decade, according to a paper by three economists. And they account for only 11 percent of the top 0.1 percent of earners.
The threshold for making the top 1 percent of earners in 2014 was $390,000, while it was $1.32 million for the top 0.1 percent...
...“The higher up you move in the income distribution, the lower the proportion of women,”... ...“It shows that there is a fundamental form of inequality at the top related to gender.”...
...cracking the “diamond ceiling” appears to be getting harder...
...suggestions for helping women reach the top. She supports eliminating “say on pay” rules that allow shareholders to vote on executive compensation, and eliminating shareholder advisory groups. “If shareholders do not like the pay a woman is receiving as C.E.O., they should simply sell the stock, and vice versa,” she said...
...she supports programs that bring more girls into technology and engineering programs. She is a big proponent of Dean Kamen’s First organization, which encourages boys and girls in such fields.
“I am confident that from the girls who participate in First we will achieve gender parity in top income generation over the next generation,” Ms. Rothblatt said. “The girl who can dominate a field of robots is a woman who can dominate a field of men.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
ROTFLMAO!
Nope. Entry level people can't compete with H1B workers willing to cut their throats at 30c on the dollar. Kids are getting sacked the minute they step out of school.
If I was going back to school right this second and had to recommend a profession, I'd do something in health care (lots of Boomers aging out) or a trade like electrical or welding. No outsourcing those fields overseas.
lol, keeping your pimp hand strong I see . ..
For the record, I dont condone this type of activity..
I was glad to see Theranos take a fall. Only problem was the misdiagnoses and all the people she dragged down with her.
Why Aren’t There More Female Billionaires?
Two words:
John Kerry
Why aren’t there more whites in the NBA?
Some day the Times is going to discover psychobiological differences between the sexes. If the writer can find a way to make them positive for Leftism, he'll win a Pulitzer Prize. :)
If you take out women who inherit, the number falls to near zero.
I didn't read the article because I try to avoid giving clicks to 'news' sites like the New York Times that can't seem to understand the difference between leftist, politically-motivated opinion article crap masquerading as 'news' (such as this one) and real news. So I'm not certain whether that quote can be fairly attributed to the author, Robert Frank, or to someone else. Although, as the author of the piece, he bears a great deal of responsibility for its content and so he must be held to account.
Clearly whoever was the source of the quote needs to be sent to a re-education camp operated by the Obamunist regime, and Robert Frank needs to join them.
Didn't Frank and the three economists who authored the paper get the message that gender is merely a 'social construct'? So the entire basis of the paper is false, and by extension, all of the paper's conclusions are tainted.
The authors of the paper have no idea of what may be the 'gender choice' of the billionaires who were the subjects of the study. Frank and the paper's authors display a 'heteronormative bias' that is shocking in its cluelessness. So the referenced claim is obviously a result of shoddy 'scholarship' (if you can dignify a political screed by that appellation, that is). Where are the 'thought police' when they are so urgently needed?
I demand that the New York Times immediately retract the article, because it is a most glaring example of 'fake news', and because it violates all norms of 'progressive' orthodoxy and civility*.
Of course, when I refer to progressive 'civility' here, I mean the 'every day is backwards day to progressives' type of 'civility, not 'real' civility.
Isn't she only half-a-billionaire? Pre-nup considerations aside, of course.
Isn't she only half-a-billionaire? Pre-nup considerations aside, of course.
Why go to the trouble when you can give a little and spend a lot.
Because it’s easier for a woman to marry a millionaire than become one.
Because they do not have male appendages?
It’s hormonal I tell you, it is hormonal!
Dumb article! Methinks the liberal brain has become unhinged.
Says the transgender feminist.
Does this read like an ad for a dominatrix one might see on Craig's List?
Good grief!
What a crock of ???.
Why aren’t there more female males?
The gender bean-counters will never be satisfied.
Says the transgender feminist.
Sounds like something written by someone who knows nothing about either robotics, women, or men's "fields". I'm pinging a nice yougn lady I know who's getting a PhD in robotics while working w/ NASA (see her here) to see if she feels like adding anything.
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.