EarningsFollow

I'm not surprised but this, but I do have a question. I'm at work and don't have a whole lot of time to read the whole report.

Does geographical differentiation play into this at all? For example, are they looking at African Americans in Atlanta vs. Whites in Atlanta, or are they just looking at the whole? The reason I'm curious is because the cost of living is lower in Atlanta, but they have a high African American population. I used to live and work in Southern California, Orange County to be exact. Our African American population, and therefore workforce, was much smaller than in Atlanta (where I currently work). In my company, CA has a geodiff with base pay, because of the cost of living. So basically someone who works in one of our 3 CA markets doing XX job has a higher pay range, then someone who does the exact same job in the Atlanta office.

Sorry to ramble, but this stuff always interests me.

With the ever increasing cost of education versus wage deflation and unemployment, I wouldn't have just assumed that a degree was automatically "worth it". I might have guessed it but it seems like a valid question.

Not saying it wasn't a valid question, but the answer still seems extraordinarily obvious. It just doesn't look like a question that deserves any kind of funding to find the answer to. Though, I will say it's much more valid a question to research than "Which brand of ketchup flows better in zero-G?"

I'd think this information is pretty relevant to our institutions of higher learning.

[:snicker:]

Sure, if you're a white male. I mean why would you want proof that others are being compensated less then you simply because they have boobs or darker skin.

But this has always been the case, not saying it's right, but it hasn't changed since woman entered the work force. The relevance of this part of the study is pretty much null and void because everyone already knew the answer.

The degree part is definitely interesting, especially because I am a Financial Analyst and have no degree. I have earned my position thru experience and reputation alone. I am only 1 year out on my bachelors now, but am taking a break because of the tuition!

Some of this will be racism and sexism. Some of it won't. Even in a world where racism and sexism disappeared tomorrow I would expect these results. Incoming wall-o-text.

Race:

Part of this will be geographical vs racism if we can assume this data is based on total regional numbers. Not saying there's not a racial component just saying this doesn't necessarily indicate rampant racism in the workplace.

Poorer neighborhoods tend to have higher visible minority population percentages. These areas will have lower cost of living and therefore lower pay ranges than "richer" neighborhoods. This is obviously carryover from previous generations where racism was much more rampant and accepted. Racism is nowhere near the level it has been historically but the geographical inequality will carry over for hundreds of years before it evens out naturally. People tend not to migrate much and when they do it tends not to be to an upgraded neighborhood but more of a sidegrade.

Lets assume I'm a white male born in a poor neighborhood. I'm likely not going to move very far from said neighborhood, most people don't. I'll probably work close to said neighborhood. Poor neighborhoods have lower cost of living and companies tend to set pay rates based on what people will accept, which is directly related to local cost of living. In this situation I'm probably making similar amounts to my visible minority coworkers at the same education level. In a richer environment the same would be true, however, in a richer environment I'm probably working with more white people, all of which are making more money than the people in the poor neighborhood.

I would expect most visible minorities to show lower pay levels in a broad geographical range study due to racial vs economic geographic population density. I would expect Asian cultures to do much better as most Asian culture is geared towards success and status, they quite simply work harder as family units to succeed than most other cultures.

Gender:

In general men take more risks than women. We're reckless. Men will make more money in general because we're more likely to jump ship for greener pastures, we're less loyal than women so it costs more to keep us. It's as simple as that. Once you get past manual labour positions pay is not based on what you are doing so much as what it takes to keep you doing it and women tend to choose stability over pay. I see it all the time where I work. Most men move on to other companies that pay more, most women won't risk their seniority so they stay. As a result my company is approximately 80% women and all of those men that left are making more money.

So, should we work to change these situations? Sure. Should we look at this and say "OMGWTFBBQ the world is so unfair!!!"? Not necessarily.

Clearly, typing irrationally about the unfairness of it all is a womanly thing, still, if you agree that there is an earning differential based strictly on gender or race, what would you suggest 'we' do?

...and raise the price for them.

Actually, you're probably right. I think I read somewhere that fat people earn less than thinner people.

Or maybe that was just fat women...?

Pretty people earn more than ugly people, too.

Fat men aren't fat, only fat women are fat.