There is definitely a preference for more attractive people in the workplace. Particularly in customer/client facing positions.
On average women tend to take better care of their appearance than men so I think the bar is set a little higher for women. An ugly man can get away with more than an ugly woman as a result.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Earnings
EarningsFollow
Quote:
Also, women are still learning less than men. Not really surprising.
Nice typo.
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I might have guessed it but it seems like a valid question.
It's becoming much less obvious. The fact is that having a bachelors doesn't mean what it used to. Undergraduate admissions standards have laxed substantially in the last couple of decade, and the average undergraduate has, I wanna say, a 17ish point lower IQ on average than they used to. Graduate standards remain about the same, but particularly with all of these undergrads flooding the market with their B.S. degrees, the value is less. Add to that a greater disparity in tuition and the value of the degree (e.g., a medical degree at an affordable state college vs. a degree in English/philosophy/etc. at an expensive status school) and often times it isn't worth it if you're pursuing it primarily to make money.
I'd certainly be ahead financially without pursuing my doctorate, but it's necessary to do what I want to do. Also, I'm more concerned with how I'm paid for my time than with the absolute amount I make, though I may regret that come time for retirement.
A different study that came out a few months back pointed out that while getting a degree dramatically increases your earning power, the dollar for dollar amount can vary wildly.
The best bang for your buck came from a 4 year degree at Texas A&M, which cost under $30,000 for all four years, but whose graduates earned an average of $75,000 a year within five years of graduating. The other top ten schools were all public institutions with similar earnings ratios. Compare that to four years at Harvard, valued at $200,000 from start to finish, but only earning someone $100,000/year within five years of graduating.
Edited, Aug 5th 2011 3:46pm by catwho
The best bang for your buck came from a 4 year degree at Texas A&M, which cost under $30,000 for all four years, but whose graduates earned an average of $75,000 a year within five years of graduating. The other top ten schools were all public institutions with similar earnings ratios. Compare that to four years at Harvard, valued at $200,000 from start to finish, but only earning someone $100,000/year within five years of graduating.
Edited, Aug 5th 2011 3:46pm by catwho
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Yodabunny wrote:
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.
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.
It's funny, because before I read this, I was about to respond to Elinda and say that people will always come up with reasons for why things are the way they are, and why it's not unfair to have a wage gap.
I don't see how it's fair to pay exceptional workers the same as mediocre workers. Giving one group of slackers the same pay as the harder workers simply because the lazy group aren't white men isn't very fair either, is it? I'm not saying any particular group of people who aren't white men are inferior workers as a rule, but by sheer numbers there are going to be workplaces where minorities come out as the least productive.
zukunftsangst wrote:
I don't see how it's fair to pay exceptional workers the same as mediocre workers. Giving one group of slackers the same pay as the harder workers simply because the lazy group aren't white men isn't very fair either, is it? I'm not saying any particular group of people who aren't white men are inferior workers as a rule, but by sheer numbers there are going to be workplaces where minorities come out as the least productive.
I never said you should pay slackers the same as "exceptional workers."
And coming up with "reasons" that women and minorities aren't working just as hard as men is ridiculous.
Edited, Aug 5th 2011 2:00pm by Belkira
#32REDACTED,
Posted: Aug 05 2011 at 1:13 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Typical female behavior. Reacting emotionally and misinterpreting the comment.
zukunftsangst wrote:
Typical female behavior. Reacting emotionally and misinterpreting the comment.
My point was that if women should happen to be less productive workers, they shouldn't be paid equally to the more productive workers solely by the merit of being women. I did not claim that women are naturally less competent.
The point was that there are certain situations where wage gaps are fair.
My point was that if women should happen to be less productive workers, they shouldn't be paid equally to the more productive workers solely by the merit of being women. I did not claim that women are naturally less competent.
The point was that there are certain situations where wage gaps are fair.
I agreed with you.
I was talking about Yoda's post as far as the making up reasons part, not yours. Because that's the post that I originally commented on.
Typical male behavior. Jumping the gun without paying attention to all the facts.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Typical male behavior. Jumping the gun without paying attention to all the facts. 
YEAAAAAAHHH
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
zukunftsangst wrote:
Typical female behavior. Reacting emotionally and misinterpreting the comment.
My point was that if women should happen to be less productive workers, they shouldn't be paid equally to the more productive workers solely by the merit of being women. I did not claim that women are naturally less competent.
The point was that there are certain situations where wage gaps are fair.
My point was that if women should happen to be less productive workers, they shouldn't be paid equally to the more productive workers solely by the merit of being women. I did not claim that women are naturally less competent.
The point was that there are certain situations where wage gaps are fair.
I agreed with you.
I was talking about Yoda's post as far as the making up reasons part, not yours. Because that's the post that I originally commented on.
Typical male behavior. Jumping the gun without paying attention to all the facts.
Well, this is a bit embarrassing.
I swear it's never happened before.
Edited, Aug 5th 2011 3:30pm by zukunftsangst
zukunftsangst wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
zukunftsangst wrote:
Typical female behavior. Reacting emotionally and misinterpreting the comment.
My point was that if women should happen to be less productive workers, they shouldn't be paid equally to the more productive workers solely by the merit of being women. I did not claim that women are naturally less competent.
The point was that there are certain situations where wage gaps are fair.
My point was that if women should happen to be less productive workers, they shouldn't be paid equally to the more productive workers solely by the merit of being women. I did not claim that women are naturally less competent.
The point was that there are certain situations where wage gaps are fair.
I agreed with you.
I was talking about Yoda's post as far as the making up reasons part, not yours. Because that's the post that I originally commented on.
Typical male behavior. Jumping the gun without paying attention to all the facts.
Well, this is a bit embarrassing.
I swear it's never happened before.
Edited, Aug 5th 2011 3:30pm by zukunftsangst
It happens to every guy at least once... Or something..
I'd just like to note that I did not at any point suggest nor do I believe that women are less productive than men.
I did suggest and do believe that men are more likely to leave their current workplace. Men = pay > stability, Women = stability > pay, on average. A man is more likely to leave a comfortable position for an unknown for a few thousand more a year. A woman in the same position is more likely to stay, which happens to be the sensible thing to do in most cases but doesn't exactly get you ahead on the national pay scale.
I did suggest and do believe that men are more likely to leave their current workplace. Men = pay > stability, Women = stability > pay, on average. A man is more likely to leave a comfortable position for an unknown for a few thousand more a year. A woman in the same position is more likely to stay, which happens to be the sensible thing to do in most cases but doesn't exactly get you ahead on the national pay scale.
Another take on it is that men are more likely to be judged by other members of society based on what job they have, and how much money they make. Leading them to obsess over their career to an unhealthy degree to the detriment of their family, children, etc. Whereas women are more likely to keep a job in perspective and not sacrifice other aspects of their life solely for a small pay increase. Discrimination is real and bad and stuff, but there's probably more to the numbers then that. *shrugs*
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Elspetta wrote:
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!
I'm in a similar position... have a lot better job than a lot of people I know with way more education. These sorts of studies are good for generalities, but in the end it all comes down to individual situations.
If I had stayed in school and finished my degree I am pretty darn sure I would have a crappier job than I do now - because when I entered the job market it was during a so-called "labour shortage" - so there was less competition for my job. Now, people with 2 masters degrees would be applying for it, and with just a bachelors, I wouldn't stand a chance.
Anyway glad I got in when I did.
Yodabunny wrote:
I'd just like to note that I did not at any point suggest nor do I believe that women are less productive than men.
I did suggest and do believe that men are more likely to leave their current workplace. Men = pay > stability, Women = stability > pay, on average. A man is more likely to leave a comfortable position for an unknown for a few thousand more a year. A woman in the same position is more likely to stay, which happens to be the sensible thing to do in most cases but doesn't exactly get you ahead on the national pay scale.
I did suggest and do believe that men are more likely to leave their current workplace. Men = pay > stability, Women = stability > pay, on average. A man is more likely to leave a comfortable position for an unknown for a few thousand more a year. A woman in the same position is more likely to stay, which happens to be the sensible thing to do in most cases but doesn't exactly get you ahead on the national pay scale.
You make a really good point. A lot of companies have a hard cap on pay increases, so if you chose to go with stability and tenure, you are actually hurting your pay. I have run into this problem with each promotion I have received at my current company. Each time I move to a new position, I get a 10% pay raise. This leaves me at the bottom end (even some times below) of the pay range for this position. Could I go out and look for a similar position and earn more money? Maybe. Will I? No way! I love the company I work for and the benefits they provide. I have worked for a lot of different companies and I would like to make my current company the one I retire from! (The biggest draw being the pension on top of the 401k)
Recent Visitors: 236
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (236)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Earnings
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC