posted April 09, 2014 06:16 PM            

In the article, Women Don’t Ask, by Linda Babcock and Sara Laschever, the authors make the irrefutable argument (supported by replicated studies that cross national boundaries) that men negotiate two to three times more than their female counterparts. Income disparity based upon gender is considered a pervasive problem in American society, but this article reveals that things are not always as they seem. Age plays little to no role in the disparity; often, the studies were conducted among 20-somethings. The authors are saying that this is due the women not negotiating for higher salaries, whereas a large percentage of the men do, and they go on to hypothesize why this might be (based upon the answers that they received from various study participants). How this fits into my current understanding is that it is a complete and total surprise to me! I have to agree with the findings, because they seem to be beyond rational refutation, but this was most incredible article I have read thus far, and it truly gave me a paradigm shift in thinking that has left a lasting impression on me concerning how I view the employment world in general and women in particular. This article was very eye-opening, to say the least. It should be required reading for this class, in my opinion.

One of the authors, Linda, began her introspection when she was serving as the director of the PhD program at her school. She noticed that many of the male graduate students were teaching classes of their own, while conversely, most of the female graduate students had instead been assigned to working as teaching assistants to regular faculty. This seemed very unfair, so Linda approached the associate dean who handled teaching assignments and received an answer that she was not expecting. The associate dean simply replied that the women do not ask for the positions. This prompted Linda to explore this pervasive problem further. Linda pondered if women truly do receive less in life by not asking for what they want, whether there were external pressures that discourage women from asking as much as men do (and even keeping them from realizing that they can ask), and are women really less likely than men to ask for what they want? She conducted a study that looked at the starting salaries of students graduating from Carnegie Mellon University with their master’s degrees. The starting salaries of men were 7.6 percent or almost $4,000 higher than women. She dug deeper. Linda found that only 7 percent of the women had negotiated their salaries, while 57 percent (8 times more) of the men asked for more. This was despite the fact that graduating students are strongly advised by the school’s Career Services to negotiate their job offers! The most remarkable finding in this study was that the students who negotiated received 7.4 percent higher salaries ($4,053 on average), which was almost exactly the difference between the men’s and women’s starting pay! This study rather strongly suggests that the disparity between pay might have been eliminated had the women negotiated their initial job offers.

posted April 10, 2014 02:52 PM            

Discrimination is the cause of many women not asking. And those who do are often considered hardnosed Feminists...while those who don't are cowed by the arguments aquaguy put forward, they have somehow agreed that they are more likely to be less reliable because they have/will have kids and therefore shouldn't ask! It's a vicious circle.

posted April 11, 2014 10:18 AM            

This is now being disputed by research indicating that it is not women that are less corrupt, rather, it is institutions and corporations with high degrees of equality. It is rare for women to be in the majority, and so research on the other side of the coin has been limited until now. New research indicates that a majority of women are just as corrupt as a majority of men, however.

Corruption negates economic development.

Aka

Equality promotes economic development.

posted April 11, 2014 11:14 AM            

quote:

---

New research indicates that a majority of women are just as corrupt as a majority of men, however.

---

posted April 11, 2014 11:19 AM            

It gets old.

I'm a man and I take lots of time off to care for my chronically ill son and my two autistic sons, and I still have maintained much career success.

A woman is never ever hired with the assumption that child birth would have a detrimental impact on the company. Otherwise, companies would not hire women, period.

I know lots of women who haul ass at work all day long, being efficiently productive.

Men aren't any more or less of a scumbag than women. Scummy people will be scum, regardless of their gender. Either you have ethical standards or you don't.

I hire the best of the best of whatever applicant pool there is. I personally hire about 25 people every year, 16 of whom are college/masters degree new hires (analysts/associates/summer hires/interns). I manage about 75, about half of whom are six-figure earners.

I've seen lazy people of every single race, and stupid people as well. Book smarts do not translate to street smarts, and I've seen a lot of people who claim to be street smart but as intelligent as a brick wall.

I've seen poor and hungry kids as hardworking and intelligent as can be, but some of them are as lazy and as overly-entitled as crap. I've also seen my fair share of rich, spolit brats and also some who are rich and extremely humble, respectful and hardworking.

I have my own source of research. It's called hitting the pavement and getting dirty in the trenches. many PhDs have never flipping worked a single day of their lives in proper jobs, and this includes the esteemed Harvard and Wharton Business School professor types. Work 15 hour days and get laid off a couple of times and then come talk to me.

posted April 11, 2014 12:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yin:

[QUOTE]New research indicates that a majority of women are just as corrupt as a majority of men, however.

---

Well, some of it isn't published yet. I learned about it by attending a seminar where some PHD students were discussing past and current research (including theirs). So this research is really recent.

I'm no economist, so I'll admit the X and Ys of it went a little bit over my head, but it's all connected to social checks and balances as well as general economic opportunity in society. As such it is a multifaceted debate, and not only about gender equality but also more equal economic opportunity as means of negating the incentives to corrupt.

I think this article sums up current research pretty neatly; http://corruptionresearchnetwork.org/resources/frontpage-articles/gender-and-corruption

The new research arguing that gender equality negates corruption is based on initiatives where the number of women in governance has been increased due to the research indicating they are less corrupt. In cases where the number of women have been in clear majority following such initiatives, corruption has been found to increase the stronger the majority the women are. When compared to studies of male-dominated governance, this has led current academia to look into the idea that equality, and not gender, is the key.

posted April 11, 2014 12:27 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoursTrulyAlways:
Can we please stop with the stereotyping?

---

I think everyone understands not all of these gender-based arguments applies to every person, however for the sake of the debate I believe some degree of generalization is necessary.

Stereotypes appear for a reason, after all.

Finding the reason is the most interesting part, and does require discussion of some common denominators to each gender (such as women having children and men being more aggressive). For example, I think statistically you will find women take more time out from work to raise children. Men make more money than women. These are just facts, and not false stereotypes. We could discuss the reasons for it, however. As in, whether it is nature or nurture.

At least that is what I am trying to discuss in this debate.

posted April 12, 2014 07:11 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoursTrulyAlways:
I myself negotiate a certain list on requirements behind any job offer: (1) minimum tenor of employment - if one year, I get paid out the full year if I get fired the next day, with full benefits, (2) minimum severance package - if terminated without cause, (3) sign-on bonus, (4) minimum first years' bonus, (5) partial vacation if not hired at the beginning of the year, (6) career track/objectives.

---

I think there should be good laws and presence of worker's unions to cover such issues so that measures like these are not necessary.

posted April 12, 2014 09:49 AM            

Men *should* get paid more than women because they ask for a higher salary? Why? Is it just assumed that boldness and negotiation prowess will be two of the key traits they employer is looking for in a job candidate? Wouldn't that just apply to certain jobs and not others? For example, how does a person having the capacity to wrangle for self-advancement make him or her a better, more qualified professor, deserving of higher pay than others?

posted April 12, 2014 04:03 PM            

My sense of ethics (and my understanding of what makes company culture thrive or fall) is more complicated than that. I think people *should* (key word here) get paid according to their performance while employed, so that promotions or salary increases come in due time, reflecting a managerial hierarchy that is functionally aware and incentive-oriented. In that case, pay wouldn't be contingent upon a low-level skill like self-promotion, which anyone can master, and which only has limited value. Instead, other skills would be renumerated more consistently, like those which more specifically advance the objectives of the company.

After all, just because someone negotiates for better pay at the outset doesn't explain why they should consistently be paid higher than their colleagues over time, if other factors indicate that they aren't outperforming those colleagues.

posted April 12, 2014 05:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Is it fair to go buy a car and pay full retail because you didn't ask for a lower price?

---

posted April 12, 2014 06:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Is it fair to go buy a car and pay full retail because you didn't ask for a lower price?

---

In what way is keeping someone employed comparable to the one-time purchase of a car, unless said "employee" is actually a slave?