
Why women earn less: Just two factors explain post-PhD pay gap - chriskanan
http://www.nature.com/news/why-women-earn-less-just-two-factors-explain-post-phd-pay-gap-1.19950
======
knorker
Sometimes I think that this issue will get a news report similar to the one
flash-forward from The Simpsons: "[year 40 years from now] 40 year study
concludes: diet and exercise leads to weight loss".

Except it'll be: "40 year study concludes: choosing a less lucrative field,
and putting more time into family leads to lower salary at work".

We can have all the equality possible. That doesn't change the fact that
nobody can have it all. You can't be a primary caregiver and also have an
equal career to someone who isn't (statistically, obviously). Traditionally
it's been the father who has (for lack of a better word) neglected the
children. If you want an equally successful career you need to choose to
(again, bad word here) neglect the children.

There are only 24 hours in the day.

~~~
inopinatus
You've jumped to a conclusion the study does not appear to draw. It does not
state that being a married _primary caregiver_ correlates with a lower
expected salary. It says that being a married _woman_ with offspring
correlates with a lower expected salary.

In other words that there is systematic bias against married women with
children, not against all married caregivers with children.

The idea that men can be a primary caregiver still blows minds.

 _edit: s /leads to/correlates with/_ which I agree is an important nuance but
doesn't change my point.

~~~
bubuga
> It says that being a married woman with offspring leads to a lower expected
> salary.

No, it doesn't.

It says that there is a correlation between being a married woman with
offspring and a lower expected salary.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_cau...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation)

Furthermore, if you even had read the article you would've noticed the bit
where it says "Weinberg says that the data cannot identify or tease apart
factors that might explain why married women with children earn less — among
the possibilities"

~~~
inopinatus
Okay. My point stands whether one writes "leads to" or "correlates with".

Thanks for suggesting the correction, and can I in turn suggest avoiding the
phrase "if you had even read the article" in future. I'm sure you intended it
to reinforce your remark, but I believe it actually tends to devalue any point
it accompanies.

~~~
Chris2048
Small point: "if you even had read the article" and "if you had even read the
article" are (imho) semantically different.

In the first the 'even' appears to mean "even in this very article, you may
find this", where as in the second it appears to mean "if you at least put in
the effort to read this article".

------
bluecalm
>>An unmarried, childless woman earned — on average — the same annual salary
after receiving her doctorate as a man with a PhD in the same field, the
researchers found.

This suggest that there is no sexism when it comes to compensation for your
work, at least among PhDs.

>>That difference, they say, was explained entirely by the finding that
married women with children earned less than men. Married men with children,
on the other hand, saw no disadvantage in earnings.

Isn't it obvious? Women spend more time away from work raising children. I am
ok with the world working that way. Women are better equipped to take care of
a child in its first years and taking time to do that will naturally lead to
making less money at work (because you spend less time there/learn less/have
less experience). It makes sense to split roles in a family: a better equipped
partner takes care of children and the other spends more time providing.
That's efficient use of combined family human resources.

I see no reasons to fight it. Life is about choices if you want children you
will not get as far in your career as people who prioritize career over
everything else. It would be unfair to force the latter group to subsidize
your lifestyle choices.

~~~
foobar2020
I believe somewhere at the core of the issue lies inadequate recognition of
the critical importance and difficulty of parenthood. It's crazy expensive,
eats up half of your life, and sometimes gets very unrewarding. But it's so
obvious that being a parent is crucial to the society! A civilization that
sacrifices reproduction over GDP is bound to disappear. Contrast with f. eg.
the Muslim culture, where children are the main source of pride of the mother.

At the risk of sounding condescending (I'm not) let's thank our mothers for
bringing us into this world. Well done job moms, you really are the best.

~~~
bluecalm
>>I believe somewhere at the core of the issue lies inadequate recognition of
the critical importance and difficulty of parenthood.

I am not sure that's a problem. I've chosen to remain childless because of it
and I've never ever met a person who would downplay how hard it is to raise
children and not make their (and your) life miserable in the process.

>>But it's so obvious that being a parent is crucial to the society!

Well, my view is that we have way too many people. We have already taken all
the land, we are polluting, cutting down forests and there are so many of us
we even make the world a worse place to live for ourselves (let alone other
species).

>>A civilization that sacrifices reproduction over GDP is bound to disappear.

There is a middle ground between disappearing and having way less people.
Machines are coming, we don't need that many to sustain the civilization.

>>Muslim culture, where children are the main source of pride of the mother.

Yeah, and Muslim countries are overcrowded, poor and unstable (at least vast
majority of them).

>>At the risk of sounding condescending (I'm not) let's thank our mothers for
bringing us into this world. Well done job moms, you really are the best.

At the risk of sounding nihilist: I am not thankful and I will not bring
children myself. Too much risk of them being unhappy, breathing polluted air
and getting cancer. They would also use a lot of resources, produce a lot of
trash and compete over ever decreasing land to build houses on.

I support people who are fit to have children (which includes resources, a
good mate, mental health and ability to make them happy) but I don't think we
should incentivize it today environment.

~~~
saiya-jin
>> Well, my view is that we have way too many people.

true, but only for quantity. quality people, meaning happy, educated, highly
moral, caring, contributing to society, etc people we definitely don't have
enough. you cannot guarantee to raise such a person no matter how hard you
try, but you (anybody) can do your best.

------
bluejeans
Everytime an article like that is posted on Reddit or HN, comments point out
that basically, women don't put up as much work as men, which explains their
lower salaries. Case closed, not my problem, next thread.

The article gives two factor to explain lower salaries among women. The first
one is that they chose less lucrative academic fields. The second one happens
when the woman is a mother. Despite the speculation in this thread that it's
because the woman spends much time raising her child, the article isn't
positive about that, and even suggests another possibility (employers assign
different responsibilities and salaries to these women).

Anyway, those are just intermediate explanations. The next step is
understanding _why_ women make such choices. While I understand that it's
tempting to just imagine that it comes from "natural" differences (whatever
that would mean) between men and women on which we have no control, another
possibility is sexism in the way we raise boys and girls differently. Let's
not close the case until we've ruled out this hypothesis, or solved it if it
happens to be true.

~~~
emsy
The problem is the lack of nuance in this debate. It's either "natural
differences" or as you said > another possibility is sexism in the way we
raise boys and girls differently.

Making this a binary choice is unnecessary, dangerous and in no way better
than the "conservative" notion that women belong to the kitchen. Let's assume
everything is solely based on social factors, adult women in this generation
still won't have control over the way they were raised. It's unlikely that
they will suddenly drop the behaviour they accquired over decades. And even if
they could, why should they? If they're happy with their choices let them be.
Instead we should work to value caregivers more, regardless of gender.

~~~
antisthenes
Since when did raising boys and girls differently become sexism?

------
ooopsnevermind
It's not fair to conclude that women just pick less lucrative fields; other
studies have shown that as women enter a field, they are paid less than male
colleagues, even for the same work, therefore dragging down the overall
average compensation for the field.
[http://m.sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/88/2/865.short](http://m.sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/88/2/865.short)
So no matter what women do, whatever field they choose to enter will _become_
less lucrative, not due to their choice but because of inherent gender bias in
pay.

Another factor that is not addressed in this study is the fact that even apart
from societal expectations, the inequality of maternity and paternity leave
policies don't fairly give moms and dads the chance to be equally involved in
childcare from the very beginning even if they wanted to.
[http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/\---dgreports/\---dcom...](http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/wcms_242615.pdf)

I don't see why we should be satisfied with the current situation for men,
either. Why wouldn't we want a society that gives moms AND dads the option to
be involved and present in their kids' lives without branding them as
insufficiently dedicated to their work? I think it's totally unfair when I
hear about friends who are dads who are met with skepticism when they want
leave from work for their kids. There's no shortage of research showing that
parental involvement, from both sides, from an early age is good for our kids.

------
dzink
To see where the problems are:

If you are a married woman and you earn more than your husband, you still end
up with more childcare responsibilities and less money than your peers.

If you are in a field that is dominated by women, your compensation becomes
progressively less than pay in other fields.

If you are great or even best at what you do and chose to not have kids to
remain paid well, you remove yourself from the human gene-pool, which is not
favorable for humanity in the long run.

Because of norms and cultural understanding you are essentially throttling 50%
of humanity's evolutionary and talent potential on the basis of a random
assignment at conception.

A different study proves than economically developed countries with more
conservative cultural norms regarding gender have substantially lower birth
rates (Japan, Bulgaria), well below turnover rates for a healthy society
(turnover rate: 2.1 children per family). The more shared parental
responsibility an educated society has, the higher its growth.

So are cultural norms mortgaging the future of developed economies? How can
this problem be fixed?

Now if you look outside of the US and in different social experiments here is
how the problem has been solved before:

1\. Families live in the same area reducing economic mobility and slowing down
overall econlnomy, but retired grandparents take over care for little ones.

2\. Providing universal childcare with high standards of care and education
(partial example: Israel, Eastern Europe, Northern Europe etc). After some
iteration society ensures that every child gets an equally productive start.
Parents male or female are serving society with their best skill set.
Population growth in an economically advanced society that leads to economic
and scientific development as well.

------
danieltillett
The most interesting aspect about all these articles is it appears the market
is efficient. If there was a true gap in pay and productivity for women then
it would make sense for companies to favor women over men when hiring. That
there does not appear to be any gap is both reason for celebration (if an
employee) and dispair (if an employer).

------
littletimmy
I'm disturbed by this recent development that your career is considered more
important than your family. Somehow, that your family is "holding you back",
and the underlying message being that the career should be the focus of your
life.

The family is the cornerstone of civilization! What's wrong with the
traditional system where the mother and father work together to provide for a
family? It makes a lot of sense to me that the father and mother specialize in
different areas (fathers in workplace, women in childrearing) and that way
kids both the material wellbeing and the emotional wellbeing to become well-
adjusted people.

With all due respect, if the system has worked well for so long, why change
it?

~~~
7952
> I'm disturbed by this recent development that your career is considered more
> important than your family. Somehow, that your family is "holding you back",
> and the underlying message being that the career should be the focus of your
> life.

Yes children may hold back your career. Why is is wrong to regret that fact?
It does not mean that someone considers their career more important than
family. In fact it suggests the exact opposite.

> he family is the cornerstone of civilization! What's wrong with the
> traditional system where the mother and father work together to provide for
> a family?

Civilisation sometimes exhibits negative behaviour, just like a family. It is
so overwhelming common that it becomes an almost meaningless description. It
could be loving and nurturing or abusive and hateful. You are really talking
about the "traditional nuclear family" which could be just like Finland or a
bit like North Korea. Without knowing which it is a meaningless discussion.

~~~
littletimmy
> You are really talking about the "traditional nuclear family" which could be
> just like Finland or a bit like North Korea. Without knowing which it is a
> meaningless discussion.

When we talk about the traditional nuclear family in the USA we normally refer
to as the 1950s family unit.

------
abalone
To be clear: both factors may well be related to sexism.

 _" The findings support earlier research that suggests that parental and
household responsibilities often affect women disproportionately, particularly
in environments without adequate work–life and family policies"_

I would also question why women "choose" less lucrative fields of study.
Perhaps various forms of sexism make the higher paying male dominated fields a
harder choice.

~~~
cperciva
_I would also question why women "choose" less lucrative fields of study.
Perhaps various forms of sexism makes the higher paying male dominated fields
a harder choice._

It could also be the other way around: Social expectations concerning men as
primary income-earners makes it a hard choice for men to pursue less lucrative
fields of study.

~~~
abalone
Putting aside the sheer absurdity of that argument -- women pursue biology
PhDs because they expect to be supported by a man? -- it still wouldn't
explain why women are under represented in higher paying fields.

~~~
RyanZAG
How is there any absurdity?

If a person is expected to only choose a high paying field, but has two
options open:

1\. High paying field they don't really like.

2\. Low paying field they'd love to do.

Then if there are social expectations that someone must make a lot of money,
they will generally be forced to choose option 1.

The argument that men are forced by social expectations to choose option 1,
and women are more freely able to choose option 2 is not 'absurd'. It may be
correct or incorrect and would need some evidence to back it up, but please
don't go around labeling positions you don't like as 'absurd'.

~~~
abalone
You ignored my explicit spelling out of the absurdity: that it assumes women
pursuing certain advanced STEM degrees do so expecting to be financially
supported by a man.

~~~
RyanZAG
They're not going to need support for themselves with either STEM degree - but
they're not going to be able to support a husband and children on a low paying
STEM. And nobody would expect them to support a husband. Meanwhile a man would
be expected to support a wife and children off his salary. This is the
expectations difference you are calling absurd.

~~~
abalone
It is not the "expectations difference" that is absurd. It is the notion that
highly educated women freely choose to opt out of high paying engineering/CS
fields and pursue lower-paying PhDs because they plan on men supporting them.
Is there a single shred of evidence to support this? Interviews with female
grad students where they spell out this plan of theirs, etc.? Of course not.
Meanwhile, tons of evidence around sexist cultures in engineering and CS. [1]

[1] see for example _Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing_ (MIT Press)
[http://www.amazon.com/Unlocking-Clubhouse-Women-Computing-
Pr...](http://www.amazon.com/Unlocking-Clubhouse-Women-Computing-
Press/dp/0262632691)

~~~
Chris2048
> because they plan on men supporting them

You added the idea of conscious planning. Replace "plan on supporting them"
with "higher probability of getting support".

> tons of evidence around sexist cultures in engineering and CS

This has no bearing on the above claim though, does it? That men have a higher
risk of being able to find a partner capable and willing on supporting them
financially.

------
benbenolson
The sky is blue, web developers use Javascript sometimes, and Apple is a
profitable company.

------
ps4fanboy
[http://www.who.int/topics/breastfeeding/en/](http://www.who.int/topics/breastfeeding/en/)

Because of biology its very hard for the father to be the primary carer to
children after being born.

Until men and women share equal parts of child rearing on average you wont see
equal averages in other parts of society like income by age and career
choices.

Women have shown a tendency to favor work life balance over income on average
which means if you want to increase female mobility in male dominated jobs you
need to increase working conditions for men, like equal entitlements for
paternity and maternity leave.

Birth rates in western countries are already falling below 2.0 which is a
reduction in population.

While some would argue this is a good thing for the environment, the west does
not have the majority of the world population and a reduction in population
could lead to geo political instability. The majority of the worlds population
does not live under democratic rule, a reduction in population in democratic
countries only is a troubling trend.

~~~
wow_hn
> Because of biology its very hard for the father to be the primary carer to
> children after being born.

That's not true. Fortunately, we have in our society the technology (breast
pumps) that allow women to save their breast milk for _anyone_ capable of
caring for the child to use at a later time: fathers, grandparents, and even
the mothers themselves.

They're not the most pleasant contraptions in the world to use (so I'm told),
but I wouldn't characterize their use as "very hard".

My wife was the primary caregiver for our children the first 2-3 months, and
then she went back to work and I raised them as the primary caregiver. For me
to provide them breastmilk after was a bit inconvenient at times, but never
"very hard" (they continued to be exclusively breastfeed until ~6 months, and
breastfeed in combination with other foods until ~1 year).

~~~
ps4fanboy
Unless the mother continuously pumps her milk during the day her production
will prematurely stop. Additionally the world health organisation recommends
breast feeding for two years.

~~~
wow_hn
> Unless the mother continuously pumps her milk during the day her production
> will prematurely stop

That's true. Most jobs in the U.S. allow women to do this, and those that
don't are unfortunate and should be shunned if possible.

> Additionally the world health organisation recommends breast feeding for two
> years.

Yes, but the APA in the US recommends 6 months exclusive/at least 1 year. In
our case, it was a bit over 1 year for the first child (she wanted to stop),
and almost 2 years for the second (had to be weaned, imagine he would have
kept going until adolescence had we permitted /s).

A major reason the WHO recommends breast-feeding for two years is because of
water quality issues in developing countries. We are fortunate (for the most
part) to have water here in the US free of those pathogens that cause early
childhood mortality.

EDIT: I'm rate-limited at the moment, but after carefully reading your reply
below, I'd say we probably agree on most parts of the issue posed in TFA.
However, unless I'm misreading your position, we appear to disagree on the
relative fitness of men and women to raise young children (My position: thanks
to technology, both men and women in the West are equally _capable_ of raising
infants and young children. In my opinion, their fitness for that task depends
on the person).

~~~
ps4fanboy
> That's true. Most jobs in the U.S. allow women to do this, and those that
> don't are unfortunate and should be shunned if possible.

If only the majority of the US population had that kind of choice.

We are arguing on the same side on this one just quibbling over semantics,
"the pay gap" is in my opinion a reflection of the asymmetric nature of
raising children between employees and companies, this manifests by women
choosing careers on average that are more flexible and have better non
monetary benefits, these benefits dont have a positive effect on profitability
of the companies/industries that offer them, therefore they have lower average
incomes than others. until that burden is equally placed on all companies we
wont see any change in the choices females and males make because they will be
constrained by their situation (family etc) and that will influence their
decisions. To suggest this situation is because of sexism and not capitalism
is intellectual fraud the statistics just dont back it up.

------
venomsnake
Taking 2,4,6 years off from making a career leads to lower pay and earning
potential. Good to know.

Sadly this is very hard to be countered even with affirmative action, because
a person taking a break (for whatever reason, health issues, a single guy on a
two year sabbatical will be hit too, maternity leave) is objectively weaker
hire than a person that has built name and contacts in the same period.

Edit: Clarified lower pay

~~~
lostlogin
The article says pay is lower for women than men in the first year post PhD.
It would seem safe to presume that the men and women were both working and
neither group were at home with kids At the time point being measured.

~~~
cperciva
I think venomsnake's point is that taking time away from a career for child-
rearing has a long-term impact on earnings, not just that it affects the
amount earned in the years spent on child-rearing.

