Personal Observation of a Gendered Pattern in Personal Finance Discourse

[davef]

So any person who had the same position I did would get the exact same pay as I would.

While that may be fair to both genders it is definately unfair to hard workers, regardless of gender, and leads to employees working just hard enough to jeep their jobs.
 
Where I come your pay is dictated by the quality and quantity of your work. If I produce superior work, are accomplish more in less time I get paid more. And I am not talking peacework manufacturing here. I am talking six figure salary jobs. Can you imagine somone who has been a position for 40 years, and is known around the world for their skills making the same as an employee with the same job code right out of training who needs constant supervision, produces work that is good considering the the relative inexpereince but it is work that others still need to touch up?

 It just doesnt work, management needs to retain some discetion over pay to reward super performers or you wont have any super performers. Just ask anyone who has worked for the US government.   

[deborah]

The figure of 17 - 20% was for EXACTLY THE SAME JOB - and it happens in the public service as well as outside the public service. In Australia, the financial services industry is the most inequitable (from memory). The armed services have a particular problem in Australia that until very recently (last year?) women were not allowed in combat roles - which also affects pay equality.

Here pay rates for public service jobs are public knowledge and open for all to see. That includes pensions too.  So any person who had the same position I did would get the exact same pay as I would. Same thing with raises and promotion. Military members of the same rank also get the same pay - but those who serve in combat positions or in war zones, or even several kinds of hazardous duty do get extra pay. Same for military people who have spouses and kids.  And in the other 4 services, even with the lifting of combat duty for women, they still have many job specialties women aren't allowed to do - highly discriminatory IMHO - and can hold someone back from promotions. But we do have equal pay for equal job and level of job in the public sector. But in the private sector I can see that there might be a lot more unequal pay for some women who are doing the exact same job at the exact same level as a guy. Very discriminatory!

Oops - sorry to hijack this thread with my ramblings!

In Australia the same applies - the person in the same position in the public service gets the same pay. However, there are pay bands (usually you get extra each year you remain in a band) so when you get a position you can ask to be further up your band. Men may ask more than women. End result is two people doing the same job for different money. Doesn't matter - end result men are paid more than women for the same job, and jobs where women dominate are paid less than jobs where men dominate.

However, although women get paid 40% less than men over their career, and end up financially worse off than men, they don't actually end up 40% less well off financially. So, they are possibly better financial managers than men. Unfortunately, women also live longer than men, and have a longer retirement than men (in Australia until recently women retired at 60 and men at 65, women have a life expectancy of 85, while men live until 79, so women had a 25 year retirement while men had 14 years - so 40% less money needed to last twice as long), so elderly women are far more likely to be very poor.

[Spartana]

So any person who had the same position I did would get the exact same pay as I would.

While that may be fair to both genders it is definately unfair to hard workers, regardless of gender, and leads to employees working just hard enough to jeep their jobs.
 
Where I come your pay is dictated by the quality and quantity of your work. If I produce superior work, are accomplish more in less time I get paid more. And I am not talking peacework manufacturing here. I am talking six figure salary jobs. Can you imagine somone who has been a position for 40 years, and is known around the world for their skills making the same as an employee with the same job code right out of training who needs constant supervision, produces work that is good considering the the relative inexpereince but it is work that others still need to touch up?

 It just doesnt work, management needs to retain some discetion over pay to reward super performers or you wont have any super performers. Just ask anyone who has worked for the US government.

Welcome to the wonderful world of a government employee!! Now where is my donut? It's time for my 2 hour lunch followed by my one hour nap. Just joking. We actually did have to work hard....sometimes :-)!

[davef]

However, although women get paid 40% less than men over their career, and end up financially worse off than men, they don't actually end up 40% less well off financially. So, they are possibly better financial managers than men.

I'm not sure if Australia is anything like the US in that regard, but if it is Divorce law and Alimony may have something to do with that. Most single elderly ladies I know are fairly well off, whether by their own sweat and tears entirely, by out living the rest of the family, or by collecting large sums of money from ex(s). 

[deborah]

However, although women get paid 40% less than men over their career, and end up financially worse off than men, they don't actually end up 40% less well off financially. So, they are possibly better financial managers than men.

I'm not sure if Australia is anything like the US in that regard, but if it is Divorce law and Alimony may have something to do with that. Most single elderly ladies I know are fairly well off, whether by their own sweat and tears entirely, by out living the rest of the family, or by collecting large sums of money from ex(s).

I would be surprised if the US didn't have the same problem Australia has with most of the extreme poor being women - elderly women or women with young children. This would tend to refute the "collecting large sums of money from ex's" argument. However, as most people don't have a large stash, there probably aren't usually large sums of money to collect.

[Spartana]

Deborah - I think the USA is like Australia in that many of (most?) of the poor are women - single mothers and elderly women. I think that's often due to being...well... young single mothers who don't have financial support and have no job skills or have been out of the work force awhile or, for older women, having been SAHM's and homemakers for many years (or had low level jobs due putting hubby's career first) and then find themselves  widowed or divorced (without any assets) and haven't worked for decades so take low paying jobs. This was the case for my Mom, an immigrant from Europe, when our Dad left her with 3 kids to raise alone and no alimony and only a small child support payment. She had been out of the work force to raise kids for over 15 years. She pieced together a life for us on minimum wage jobs, and then went on to be fairly financially successful in her career (she was very mustachian) over the years. I think that's the situation for many older women who lead traditional married lives. 

[Beric01]

I would be surprised if the US didn't have the same problem Australia has with most of the extreme poor being women - elderly women or women with young children. This would tend to refute the "collecting large sums of money from ex's" argument. However, as most people don't have a large stash, there probably aren't usually large sums of money to collect.

The majority of homeless are men, in every country including Australia.

Of course, more women are in shelters, and the women get the majority of the money.

[Spartana]

I would be surprised if the US didn't have the same problem Australia has with most of the extreme poor being women - elderly women or women with young children. This would tend to refute the "collecting large sums of money from ex's" argument. However, as most people don't have a large stash, there probably aren't usually large sums of money to collect.

The majority of homeless are men, in every country including Australia.

Of course, more women are in shelters, and the women get the majority of the money.

True but most homeless men are generally homeless due to drug and alcohol addiction (or mental illness) and less to do with low income jobs. I do volunteer work with homeless military Vets, and those seem to be the root problems keeping them homeless.

[tanhanivar]

The point here isn't how valid any of those reactions are, the point is they follow a clear pattern of the pleasant satisfaction from the wives and a chastening or general disgust from the unwed, where the stimulus is always a mention of personal fiscal responsibility or personal financial improvement. 

There just seems to be a pattern, for some reason, in the tiny little slice of humanity I seem to be observing.  I've pondered before why this is. 

Part of it may be that statistically, married people (regardless of gender) tend to be better with money in nearly every metric imaginable.  So maybe it's because people who are good with money tend to get married, ergo I see this pattern in everyday life.

Or it could go the other way.  Maybe people who are single vs. married have different priorities overall for whatever reason.  I mean I used to be a real idiot with money (Shocking!), but thankfully for us all many other people are also former idiots, so maybe marriage is an event that causes such a personal reform.

There are a *lot* of possible layers and influences that people are acting under or fighting their way out of. For example, as general points:

• As discussed above and elsewhere, men frequently have the same monetary weaknesses as women, but buy different things (experiences? toys? gaming and media? it depends).
• Financially responsible people often don't talk about money in public.
• People in a relationship frequently have to negotiate all spending or, less positively, may have a very controlling partner.

Then, in my experience of (and as) single women in my culture (and remembering many women will always be single, and many who aren't will become so by separation or widowhood), there are these expectations and slogans and lessons which you're internalising or fighting off or growing into or out of at any stage. These are just a few of the big ones:

• You're a princess who should have everything you need.
• You will find a prince.
• Don't worry your pretty head about money.
• You deserve it.
• The right guy will come along.
• You can have it all --> You must have it all.
• He's out there somewhere, and life will change when you get married: saving and buying a house etc is for that other life.
• You can have a career --> You must have a career.
• No one discusses finance, or what to do with this money you are earning.
• Peer pressure, movies, sex and the city.
• Sisters are doing it for themselves.
• Someday my prince will come.
• Why don't you have a man yet?
• You need to lose weight/be hairless/have a good haircut, but it will pay off!
• A man is not a financial plan.
• You are 30/40/50, welcome to being a crazy cat lady.
• You only have you (and maybe the cats) to support.
• Singing "All the single ladies" at the hairdresser.
• You might as well have fun.
• Don't wait for someone to come along to treat you nicely.
• What about financial security?
• Now I have to look after relatives in their old age.
• Who will look after me in mine?

And that's just what I've observed in my groups of friends, who are reasonably sensible with their money (from a non-MMM perspective), and haven't had financial setbacks due to bad relationships. There are a lot of mixed messages from society, and if you've never known or had to learn about personal finance, it can take a lot for that message to break through, and to evaluate it when it does. Why save money and deprive yourself? Who are you saving it *for*?! (That the answer might be "you" is only a faint voice among many).

[happy]

Late to the party.
As a "unattached, divorced or single female"  I am just here to flame the OP. What a load of unsupported personal opinion.

[Celda]

There aren't any studies that compare the same job and find that women earn less than men for doing the same work.

There are plenty of dishonest studies that falsely claim to compare the same job, but that is all.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424053111903454504576486690371838036?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424053111903454504576486690371838036.html

For instance, one poster here gave this link as proof that women earn less in the same job:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2011/ted_20110216_data.htm

First of all, notice how the link says "weekly earnings" - which ignores the fact that women work less hours than men.

Second:

online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424053111903454504576486690371838036?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424053111903454504576486690371838036.html

But proofers often make the claim that women earn less than men doing the exact same job. They can't possibly know that. The Labor Department's occupational categories can be so large that a woman could drive a truck through them. Among "physicians and surgeons," for example, women make only 64.2 percent of what men make. Outrageous, right?

Not if you consider that there are dozens of specialties in medicine: some, like cardiac surgery, require years of extra training, grueling hours, and life-and-death procedures; others, like pediatrics, are less demanding and consequently less highly rewarded. Only 16 percent of surgeons, but a full 50 percent of pediatricians, are women. So the statement that female doctors make only 64.2 percent of what men make is really on the order of a tautology, much like saying that a surgeon working 50 hours a week makes significantly more than a pediatrician working 37.

As for someone who said that "women's work is paid less" and stated that hairdressers are paid less than car mechanics as proof, and further stated that both require the same skill and training:

My girlfriend learned to cut my hair in about 30 minutes. Stick her in front of a car for 30 minutes by herself and she might have figured out how to change the oil - or might not.

Further, there are a lot more people willing to be hairdressers than car mechanics - which both goes to show how much easier it is, and also explains why it pays less.

[deborah]

There aren't any studies that compare the same job and find that women earn less than men for doing the same work.

Sorry Celda, you are wrong, there are many because the G20, OECD and the UN have policies that countries have signed up to and/or gather statistics for. For instance, the latest OECD stats are http://www.oecd.org/els/family/LMF1.6%20Gender%20differences%20in%20employment%20outcomes%20-%20updated%20290713.xls

You will note from this that the US is much more inequitable than the Australian figures I have been quoting. Admittedly, each country has had many difficulties trying to compare "the same job". Wikipedia has a variety of the Australian figures here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_Australia, but others have been released. Each study has come up with similar figures.

Your wife learnt to cut your hair in 30 minutes while you learnt how to change your oil in 5 minutes. Neither of you are professionals with professional qualifications - which both take the same amount of time and have a similar number of entrants and a similar number of workplaces. This is why these two occupations were compared when the trade union movement in Australia was comparing equality of pay across occupations.

[gildedbutterfly]

There aren't any studies that compare the same job and find that women earn less than men for doing the same work.

...

For instance, one poster here gave this link as proof that women earn less in the same job:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2011/ted_20110216_data.htm

Ok, if the job categories bug you, feel free to take a peek at the job-by-job comparison. Same outcome in almost every job: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.pdf

I also won't go into the politics of the WSJ; I try not to post articles in these forums that might have a political slant, but since you did use a paper that has a tendency to go anti-feminist, I'll point you to a study on AAUW (an organization that has a decidedly feminist slant) on the wage gap right after college, comparing apples to apples (that is, controlling for variables like part-time work and different jobs): http://www.aauw.org/research/graduating-to-a-pay-gap/

And, in the spirit of the original post, if you prefer anecdotal evidence to statistics, there's this still-pending court case: http://www.cohenmilstein.com/cases/97/sterling-jewelers

To the OP: I'm sorry that we've gotten this thread off-topic!

[Gin1984]

There aren't any studies that compare the same job and find that women earn less than men for doing the same work.

There are plenty of dishonest studies that falsely claim to compare the same job, but that is all.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424053111903454504576486690371838036?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424053111903454504576486690371838036.html

For instance, one poster here gave this link as proof that women earn less in the same job:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2011/ted_20110216_data.htm

First of all, notice how the link says "weekly earnings" - which ignores the fact that women work less hours than men.

Second:

online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424053111903454504576486690371838036?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424053111903454504576486690371838036.html

But proofers often make the claim that women earn less than men doing the exact same job. They can't possibly know that. The Labor Department's occupational categories can be so large that a woman could drive a truck through them. Among "physicians and surgeons," for example, women make only 64.2 percent of what men make. Outrageous, right?

Not if you consider that there are dozens of specialties in medicine: some, like cardiac surgery, require years of extra training, grueling hours, and life-and-death procedures; others, like pediatrics, are less demanding and consequently less highly rewarded. Only 16 percent of surgeons, but a full 50 percent of pediatricians, are women. So the statement that female doctors make only 64.2 percent of what men make is really on the order of a tautology, much like saying that a surgeon working 50 hours a week makes significantly more than a pediatrician working 37.

As for someone who said that "women's work is paid less" and stated that hairdressers are paid less than car mechanics as proof, and further stated that both require the same skill and training:

My girlfriend learned to cut my hair in about 30 minutes. Stick her in front of a car for 30 minutes by herself and she might have figured out how to change the oil - or might not.

Further, there are a lot more people willing to be hairdressers than car mechanics - which both goes to show how much easier it is, and also explains why it pays less.

That is complete untrue.  In fact I have post many in this forum that compare job to job and still find a difference.  However, you don't just look at job to job to look at discrimination, you look and promotion rates as well which do effect salary.  Also, a hairdresser is not a barber, just FYI.
If you want to actually read the research go on pubmed, go to research and ask a librarian and you find article after article that shows women getting greater pushback for asking for a raise, a judgement of less competence when the CV has a female name vs male (equals a lower offer), lower rates of promotion even when same hours are worked and yes, same job and hour comparisons.

[Celda]

Sorry Celda, you are wrong, there are many because the G20, OECD and the UN have policies that countries have signed up to and/or gather statistics for. For instance, the latest OECD stats are http://www.oecd.org/els/family/LMF1.6%20Gender%20differences%20in%20employment%20outcomes%20-%20updated%20290713.xls

Link is broken.

Sorry, there are no studies that compare equal work - only dishonest studies, as I said.

Your wife learnt to cut your hair in 30 minutes while you learnt how to change your oil in 5 minutes....

There is a shortage - and a pressing need for - skilled auto mechanics. There is no shortage nor pressing need for hairdressers. That is why there is a difference in pay.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/autos/story/2012-08-28/shortage-of-auto-mechanics-looms/57414464/1

Ok, if the job categories bug you, feel free to take a peek at the job-by-job comparison. Same outcome in almost every job: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.pdf

Did you read what I said?

Your link is exactly the same as what the article I linked stated. It looks at an occupational category such as "physicians and surgeons", and dishonestly compares pediatricians working 35 hours a week with surgeons working 50 or 60.

I also won't go into the politics of the WSJ; I try not to post articles in these forums that might have a political slant, but since you did use a paper that has a tendency to go anti-feminist,

There are no politics involved in the link I gave - only statements of fact. Facts remain true regardless of who says them.

As for the AAUW study you mentioned - have you actually read it?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

The AAUW researchers looked at male and female college graduates one year after graduation. After controlling for several relevant factors (though some were left out, as we shall see), they found that the wage gap narrowed to only 6.6 cents. How much of that is attributable to discrimination? As AAUW spokesperson Lisa Maatz candidly said in an NPR interview, "We are still trying to figure that out."

...Furthermore, the AAUW's 6.6 cents includes some large legitimate wage differences masked by over-broad occupational categories. For example, its researchers count "social science" as one college major and report that, among such majors, women earned only 83 percent of what men earned. That may sound unfair... until you consider that "social science" includes both economics and sociology majors.

As I said - there are plenty of dishonest studies about the wage gap.

[deborah]

Try this http://www.oecd.org/statistics/ for the OECD statistics and then going down to the Gender statistics.

There have been a number of really good studies on inequality of pay for exactly the same work, some of which were referred to in the Wikipedia article. These studies all compared like with like. There are more studies coming out all the time with the same conclusions. Some day, there will be enough studies that no-one disagrees...

But, getting back to financial management (which I think is the topic under discussion), it appears that everyone agrees with me that women earn less (whether it is because women choose lower paid jobs or whether women are paid less for the same job). Also, no-one has disagreed with me about women earning about 40% less, yet having fewer bankruptcies. No-one disagreed with me about business failures being mainly due to poor financial management. So, it appears that women tend to be better at financial management.

[gildedbutterfly]

Ok, if the job categories bug you, feel free to take a peek at the job-by-job comparison. Same outcome in almost every job: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.pdf

Did you read what I said?

Your link is exactly the same as what the article I linked stated. It looks at an occupational category such as "physicians and surgeons", and dishonestly compares pediatricians working 35 hours a week with surgeons working 50 or 60.

First of all, I'm not sure that you understand what the word "dishonest" means. Statistics are not dishonest, though people writing about them (like a certain WSJ writer) can certainly use them in a dishonest way. But the numbers are just numbers. That's all.

If you have a problem with the category of physicians and surgeons, feel free to look at any of the other categories that are less broad.

And the statistics that "show" that women work fewer hours than men are often described dishonestly, such as saying, "Oh, women work less than men, that's why they are paid less." It's far from true in many categories of work, and it also doesn't take into account the discrimination that occurs in getting full-time work. But you'd have to actually do a little research and pull up the statistics yourself, as opposed to depending on journalists to just tell you about them.

I also won't go into the politics of the WSJ; I try not to post articles in these forums that might have a political slant, but since you did use a paper that has a tendency to go anti-feminist,

There are no politics involved in the link I gave - only statements of fact. Facts remain true regardless of who says them.

From the article: "Indeed, the 75-cent meme depends on a panoply of apple-to-orange comparisons that support a variety of feminist policy initiatives, from the Paycheck Fairness Act to universal child care"

That is not a fact. That is an interpretation, and one with an implicit political slant to it. Also just one example that I pulled out quickly. Again, this is the difference in doing the research yourself and getting the information from journalists. Everyone, on both sides, has an agenda. I could link here to "factual" articles that show how bad the pay gap is. Instead, I have chosen to present the facts as they are, and let people make of them what they will. Clearly, to you, it is important to believe that the statistics are not valid. That is your choice, but please don't mistake a piece of journalism with the facts, much less the truth.

If you want to actually read the research go on pubmed, go to research and ask a librarian and you find article after article that shows women getting greater pushback for asking for a raise, a judgement of less competence when the CV has a female name vs male (equals a lower offer), lower rates of promotion even when same hours are worked and yes, same job and hour comparisons.

Woohoo! Someone has read my friend Caryn Block's studies! (She has also had interesting findings about race from studies that were similarly designed.) The fact that you mentioned that just made my night. :)

[Spartana]

The figure of 17 - 20% was for EXACTLY THE SAME JOB - and it happens in the public service as well as outside the public service. In Australia, the financial services industry is the most inequitable (from memory). The armed services have a particular problem in Australia that until very recently (last year?) women were not allowed in combat roles - which also affects pay equality.

Here pay rates for public service jobs are public knowledge and open for all to see. That includes pensions too.  So any person who had the same position I did would get the exact same pay as I would. Same thing with raises and promotion. Military members of the same rank also get the same pay - but those who serve in combat positions or in war zones, or even several kinds of hazardous duty do get extra pay. Same for military people who have spouses and kids.  And in the other 4 services, even with the lifting of combat duty for women, they still have many job specialties women aren't allowed to do - highly discriminatory IMHO - and can hold someone back from promotions. But we do have equal pay for equal job and level of job in the public sector. But in the private sector I can see that there might be a lot more unequal pay for some women who are doing the exact same job at the exact same level as a guy. Very discriminatory!

Oops - sorry to hijack this thread with my ramblings!

In Australia the same applies - the person in the same position in the public service gets the same pay. However, there are pay bands (usually you get extra each year you remain in a band) so when you get a position you can ask to be further up your band. Men may ask more than women. End result is two people doing the same job for different money. Doesn't matter - end result men are paid more than women for the same job, and jobs where women dominate are paid less than jobs where men dominate.

However, although women get paid 40% less than men over their career, and end up financially worse off than men, they don't actually end up 40% less well off financially. So, they are possibly better financial managers than men. Unfortunately, women also live longer than men, and have a longer retirement than men (in Australia until recently women retired at 60 and men at 65, women have a life expectancy of 85, while men live until 79, so women had a 25 year retirement while men had 14 years - so 40% less money needed to last twice as long), so elderly women are far more likely to be very poor.

Yeah we kind of have the same thing - called pay grades. Basicly your paid grade is a combo of your time on the job and your position. It generally tops out at some point and then no more raises.  Most raises are annual - based on performance - and are pretty equally distributed between genders. The only disparity I've seen - in both the military and public sector - is due to time in service. Seems that men often have been at the jobs longer then women so often get paid more just based on that.

But I think comparing different jobs to one another (like the example of a hair dresser and mechanic) is a difficult and inaccurate way to determine job/pay equity. I was a ship's mechanic (and there is a not-so-stunning photo of me somewhere on this forum in all my greasy glory :-)!) and it is, IMHO, by far a much more difficult job. The technology and skills involved are so much more difficult to master then a hair dresser (just MHO though) and a much more difficult work environment too. So I think better comparison would be between similar jobs. I think the link someone (Gildedbutterfly?) put up with side by side pay for exact jobs was great though. Much more realistic too but still potentially prone to errors in reporting due to things like the time on the job thingie I mentioned above.

ETA: I'm a female in case I forgot to mention that :-)!

[Grid]

LalsConstant, I know this topic was meant to be serious, but I get a huge kick out of your writing. It's well done and funny; keep it up. How did you acquire such a good vocabulary?

I was thinking the same thing.  The many well-put caveats were great.

[deborah]

The figure of 17 - 20% was for EXACTLY THE SAME JOB - and it happens in the public service as well as outside the public service. In Australia, the financial services industry is the most inequitable (from memory). The armed services have a particular problem in Australia that until very recently (last year?) women were not allowed in combat roles - which also affects pay equality.

Here pay rates for public service jobs are public knowledge and open for all to see. That includes pensions too.  So any person who had the same position I did would get the exact same pay as I would. Same thing with raises and promotion. Military members of the same rank also get the same pay - but those who serve in combat positions or in war zones, or even several kinds of hazardous duty do get extra pay. Same for military people who have spouses and kids.  And in the other 4 services, even with the lifting of combat duty for women, they still have many job specialties women aren't allowed to do - highly discriminatory IMHO - and can hold someone back from promotions. But we do have equal pay for equal job and level of job in the public sector. But in the private sector I can see that there might be a lot more unequal pay for some women who are doing the exact same job at the exact same level as a guy. Very discriminatory!

Oops - sorry to hijack this thread with my ramblings!

In Australia the same applies - the person in the same position in the public service gets the same pay. However, there are pay bands (usually you get extra each year you remain in a band) so when you get a position you can ask to be further up your band. Men may ask more than women. End result is two people doing the same job for different money. Doesn't matter - end result men are paid more than women for the same job, and jobs where women dominate are paid less than jobs where men dominate.

However, although women get paid 40% less than men over their career, and end up financially worse off than men, they don't actually end up 40% less well off financially. So, they are possibly better financial managers than men. Unfortunately, women also live longer than men, and have a longer retirement than men (in Australia until recently women retired at 60 and men at 65, women have a life expectancy of 85, while men live until 79, so women had a 25 year retirement while men had 14 years - so 40% less money needed to last twice as long), so elderly women are far more likely to be very poor.

Yeah we kind of have the same thing - called pay grades. Basicly your paid grade is a combo of your time on the job and your position. It generally tops out at some point and then no more raises.  Most raises are annual - based on performance - and are pretty equally distributed between genders. The only disparity I've seen - in both the military and public sector - is due to time in service. Seems that men often have been at the jobs longer then women so often get paid more just based on that.

But I think comparing different jobs to one another (like the example of a hair dresser and mechanic) is a difficult and inaccurate way to determine job/pay equity. I was a ship's mechanic (and there is a not-so-stunning photo of me somewhere on this forum in all my greasy glory :-)!) and it is, IMHO, by far a much more difficult job. The technology and skills involved are so much more difficult to master then a hair dresser (just MHO though) and a much more difficult work environment too. So I think better comparison would be between similar jobs. I think the link someone put up with side by side pay for exact jobs was great though. Much more realistic too.

At first I was surprised about hairdressers being compared to car mechanics. However, if the trade union feels that they are equivalent in everything that matters, who am I (who was never either) to argue? I find it interesting that everyone on the forum has had the same reaction as me, and we all think that car mechanics are much more skilled than hairdressers. Does that mean that we all undervalue the skills involved in so-called women's work?

[Spartana]

The figure of 17 - 20% was for EXACTLY THE SAME JOB - and it happens in the public service as well as outside the public service. In Australia, the financial services industry is the most inequitable (from memory). The armed services have a particular problem in Australia that until very recently (last year?) women were not allowed in combat roles - which also affects pay equality.

Here pay rates for public service jobs are public knowledge and open for all to see. That includes pensions too.  So any person who had the same position I did would get the exact same pay as I would. Same thing with raises and promotion. Military members of the same rank also get the same pay - but those who serve in combat positions or in war zones, or even several kinds of hazardous duty do get extra pay. Same for military people who have spouses and kids.  And in the other 4 services, even with the lifting of combat duty for women, they still have many job specialties women aren't allowed to do - highly discriminatory IMHO - and can hold someone back from promotions. But we do have equal pay for equal job and level of job in the public sector. But in the private sector I can see that there might be a lot more unequal pay for some women who are doing the exact same job at the exact same level as a guy. Very discriminatory!

Oops - sorry to hijack this thread with my ramblings!

In Australia the same applies - the person in the same position in the public service gets the same pay. However, there are pay bands (usually you get extra each year you remain in a band) so when you get a position you can ask to be further up your band. Men may ask more than women. End result is two people doing the same job for different money. Doesn't matter - end result men are paid more than women for the same job, and jobs where women dominate are paid less than jobs where men dominate.

However, although women get paid 40% less than men over their career, and end up financially worse off than men, they don't actually end up 40% less well off financially. So, they are possibly better financial managers than men. Unfortunately, women also live longer than men, and have a longer retirement than men (in Australia until recently women retired at 60 and men at 65, women have a life expectancy of 85, while men live until 79, so women had a 25 year retirement while men had 14 years - so 40% less money needed to last twice as long), so elderly women are far more likely to be very poor.

Yeah we kind of have the same thing - called pay grades. Basicly your paid grade is a combo of your time on the job and your position. It generally tops out at some point and then no more raises.  Most raises are annual - based on performance - and are pretty equally distributed between genders. The only disparity I've seen - in both the military and public sector - is due to time in service. Seems that men often have been at the jobs longer then women so often get paid more just based on that.

But I think comparing different jobs to one another (like the example of a hair dresser and mechanic) is a difficult and inaccurate way to determine job/pay equity. I was a ship's mechanic (and there is a not-so-stunning photo of me somewhere on this forum in all my greasy glory :-)!) and it is, IMHO, by far a much more difficult job. The technology and skills involved are so much more difficult to master then a hair dresser (just MHO though) and a much more difficult work environment too. So I think better comparison would be between similar jobs. I think the link someone put up with side by side pay for exact jobs was great though. Much more realistic too.

At first I was surprised about hairdressers being compared to car mechanics. However, if the trade union feels that they are equivalent in everything that matters, who am I (who was never either) to argue? I find it interesting that everyone on the forum has had the same reaction as me, and we all think that car mechanics are much more skilled than hairdressers. Does that mean that we all undervalue the skills involved in so-called women's work?

I don't think it's so much under valuing a certain job, but  ore about need vs. want ( we probably need mechanics more then hair dressers) as well as supply and demand (greater need means fewer mechanics available to fix things means higher pay).  We all might need a mechanic of some kind (or we need mechanics to fix and run all modern things to survive - to me they are more valuable then engineers who make much more money) but few if any of us needs a hairdresser.

Ha - this made me flash back to Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy where one space ship was loaded with mechanic s and engineers and scientists, and another with hair dressers and phone sanitizers. Guess which one was suppose to crash into the sun :-)!

[Rezdent]

The purpose of this thread is merely to indulge my curiosity and perhaps gain some insight. 

First let's have the good sense to realize logical disclaimers are built into the conversation already, among these being that individual experiences are a part of the human condition, the plural of anecdote is not data, but sometimes anecdotes are all we have, and very few phenomena are absolute.  No one is out to smear your personal character here, it's just some stories that may discuss a trend but trends have very little to do with individual people.  These should be common sense assumptions, but assuming makes an... you know the rest.

In another thread discussing what is at this time the latest blog post (I think), there was some pondering and I made an off hand observation that was a bit off topic, so I figured rather than hijack that thread any further I'd start a fresh one.

My observation was that as a single male, I have observed a pattern in female behavior in general.   When the concept of personal fiscal responsibility is brought up, unattached, divorced or single females never react favorably to the concept.

Now sometimes the response is neutral, it's not always pro spendthrift/consumerist.  I can't venture a guess which way it trends within that spectrum of possibility but usually there's at least one negative reaction in there.

Conversely, it is married women, or women in life situations which are similar to marriage, who most often react positively, sometimes very positively, to the general ideas of saving more or spending less or prioritizing spending or otherwise trying to make better personal financial decisions.  Some of them are neutral to ideas like thrift or savings, but usually they’re positive.  In particular married women seem to love to save a buck.  I’m not saying they actually ever do whatever is proposed but they seem to think it’s a noble intent.

I will give one example of what I'm talking about: some time ago, I was to attend a meeting with about a dozen participants, I was mostly there as a note taker, and the only male in the room.

And these five women are coworkers, I'm not their dear friend by any means but I am pretty familiar with their overall lifestyles as they are with mine just as matter of social interaction.  Someone began to complain, and rightly so, how expensive cellular phone service had become and the question turned to what can you do about it.  At the time, I had just switched to Ting.  I volunteered that information and how it was saving me some $55 a month.

The three married women immediately were very curious and happy I brought it up.  One of them wrote down "ting.com" on the cover of her notebook, another immediately used her phone to find the site and bookmark it, and the third asked specific questions about the service.  Overall their verbal cues and body language indicated it pleased them to learn this information; it was like I had just served freshly baked cookies.

The two unattached women (one divorced and one single) were mildly disgusted, our divorcee declared "I don't think fifty bucks a month is worth not having an Iphone like some loser" (at the time Ting did not have the Iphone) and the singleton listened carefully but ultimately declared "The problem with that is, the only way you save any money is if you never call or text anybody, so if you're saving money that means you're a loser."  Their general cues were as if I had just told them about having bad diarrhea with intense and quite unnecessary olfactory detail.

The point here isn't how valid any of those reactions are, the point is they follow a clear pattern of the pleasant satisfaction from the wives and a chastening or general disgust from the unwed, where the stimulus is always a mention of personal fiscal responsibility or personal financial improvement. 

There just seems to be a pattern, for some reason, in the tiny little slice of humanity I seem to be observing.  I've pondered before why this is. 

Part of it may be that statistically, married people (regardless of gender) tend to be better with money in nearly every metric imaginable.  So maybe it's because people who are good with money tend to get married, ergo I see this pattern in everyday life.

Or it could go the other way.  Maybe people who are single vs. married have different priorities overall for whatever reason.  I mean I used to be a real idiot with money (Shocking!), but thankfully for us all many other people are also former idiots, so maybe marriage is an event that causes such a personal reform.

The main flaw in those hypotheses is they are gender neutral and my observations are not.  Male reactions to something like the Ting conversation seem to not yield this pattern.  I have thought maybe it's me, maybe I'm obnoxious and just don't realize it, but if that were the case why would anyone react positively?
 
I even think it's fair to speculate I might have an observational bias, but I don't think that's the case. 

So I am left assuming it has to be something else but I'm not sure what that would be.

And I have a deep suspicion that there will be many people who have a completely different experience to report, which is just peachy.

And now back to the OP'S topic...
I am suspecting researcher bias at play in your experience.

Could it be that the two single women were aware you are a single male?
If so, that can definitely skew their reactions.  They may actively avoid any encouragement,  no matter how small, if they sense that it might be misconstrued as interest.  Especially in a work setting.

[tanhanivar]

And now back to the OP'S topic...
I am suspecting researcher bias at play in your experience.

Could it be that the two single women were aware you are a single male?
If so, that can definitely skew their reactions.  They may actively avoid any encouragement,  no matter how small, if they sense that it might be misconstrued as interest.  Especially in a work setting.

And they may get a lot of criticism of their lifestyles & 'choices' as single women, and be proportionately more defensive of them.

[Celda]

First of all, I'm not sure that you understand what the word "dishonest" means. Statistics are not dishonest, though people writing about them (like a certain WSJ writer) can certainly use them in a dishonest way. But the numbers are just numbers. That's all.

It is dishonest to claim that one is comparing women and men working at the same job, when the reality is comparing all people who work in a large field, and when women are more likely to choose jobs with better working conditions and less sacrifice (but pay less).

It is dishonest to claim that one is comparing equal work by looking at "full-time workers", when the reality is that full-time workers are those who work at least 35 hours a week (with men working more hours than women on average).

And so on.

From the article: "Indeed, the 75-cent meme depends on a panoply of apple-to-orange comparisons that support a variety of feminist policy initiatives, from the Paycheck Fairness Act to universal child care"

That is not a fact. That is an interpretation

The claim being made - namely, that the 75-cent figure does not compare equal work (not even close) - is a statement of fact.

You seem to dislike these facts, but they remain facts nonetheless.

[gildedbutterfly]

First of all, I'm not sure that you understand what the word "dishonest" means. Statistics are not dishonest, though people writing about them (like a certain WSJ writer) can certainly use them in a dishonest way. But the numbers are just numbers. That's all.

It is dishonest to claim that one is comparing women and men working at the same job, when the reality is comparing all people who work in a large field, and when women are more likely to choose jobs with better working conditions and less sacrifice (but pay less).

It is dishonest to claim that one is comparing equal work by looking at "full-time workers", when the reality is that full-time workers are those who work at least 35 hours a week (with men working more hours than women on average).

And so on.

You still haven't provided any evidence that women work less than men or choose professions that require less sacrifice and pay less. Please provide the scientific study and/or statistics to back up your claim that these are true. Because, as I stated in my reply, they aren't necessarily true.

If, however, you only have secondary (i.e., newspaper) sources, and not links to the actual, peer-reviewed studies and/or data, then you don't need to reply. If your interpretation of facts relies on someone else, that's fine. (In all honesty, that's what most people do.) But I'm arguing from a position of knowledge of the facts, and have provided you with primary resources to back up what I'm saying. You have continued to argue a point without providing primary sources. If you have them, I would love to see them. If not, we are not arguing under the same rules and there's no reason to continue.

From the article: "Indeed, the 75-cent meme depends on a panoply of apple-to-orange comparisons that support a variety of feminist policy initiatives, from the Paycheck Fairness Act to universal child care"

That is not a fact. That is an interpretation

The claim being made - namely, that the 75-cent figure does not compare equal work (not even close) - is a statement of fact.

You seem to dislike these facts, but they remain facts nonetheless.

It is not a statement of fact. There are plenty of journalists on the other side who have argued that the 75-cent figure is true because of X, Y, and Z. Does that mean that that is fact? I know you would not accept them as facts, because many of the claims already made in this forum have been shot down by you, even when they are stated and backed up with reason in newspaper articles across the country. It's not that I dislike facts, it's that I am very clear on what a fact is and what a claim is.

Please provide primary sources to prove facts if you believe that the claims made in that article are true. You are absolutely right that the facts remain the facts. I just haven't seen you present any facts yet. However, I'm more than happy to read any primary sources that you are willing to provide.

And they may get a lot of criticism of their lifestyles & 'choices' as single women, and be proportionately more defensive of them.

Very good point! This has happened a lot to me, though on the opposite end of the scale: I often get questioned for being too frugal (as do non-single Mustachians!), but also for things like why I don't settle down, why I don't want to get married/have kids, why I choose to live "alone" in a big city (I do have a roommate), why I cut my hair the way I do, etc.

Anecdotally, I can say that it can make you very likely to react defensively and also to shut down conversations that you otherwise might be open to.

[Spartana]

And now back to the OP'S topic...
I am suspecting researcher bias at play in your experience.

Could it be that the two single women were aware you are a single male?
If so, that can definitely skew their reactions.  They may actively avoid any encouragement,  no matter how small, if they sense that it might be misconstrued as interest.  Especially in a work setting.

They may get a lot of criticism of their lifestyles & 'choices' as single women, and be proportionately more defensive of them.

Yep, back to the OP!

Maybe they didn't like the idea of a guy "fixing" things for them by suggesting they made a bad choice and he has a better one. Lots of things that it could be.

I personally think Lal's pool of women and men is way to small to make any rational comparison. I also think (in my experience) that most, if not all, of the things he said are wrong.   They seem to be based on stereotypes and not overall reality - although I respect that that is his reality and experience. I believe people are individuals who act/react and behave in all sort of manners for all sorts of reasons, and that pegging them as all one way or another is false.

[Rezdent]

And now back to the OP'S topic...
I am suspecting researcher bias at play in your experience.

Could it be that the two single women were aware you are a single male?
If so, that can definitely skew their reactions.  They may actively avoid any encouragement,  no matter how small, if they sense that it might be misconstrued as interest.  Especially in a work setting.

They may get a lot of criticism of their lifestyles & 'choices' as single women, and be proportionately more defensive of them.
[/l]Yep, back to the OP!

Maybe they didn't like the idea of a guy "fixing" things for them by suggesting they made a bad choice and he has a better one. Lots of things that it could be.

I personally think Lal's pool of women and men is way to small to make any rational comparison. I also think (in my experience) that most, if not all, of the things he said are wrong.   They seem to be based on stereotypes and not overall reality - although I respect that that is his reality and experience. I believe people are individuals who act/react and behave in all sort of manners for all sorts of reasons, and that pegging them as all one way or another is false.

Absolutely agree. Attempting to pigeonhole people based on one small interaction appears to often be a fundamental attribute error:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

"... is people's tendency to place an undue emphasis on internal characteristics to explain someone else's behavior in a given situation, rather than considering external factors. It does not explain interpretations of one's own behavior, where situational factors are more easily recognized and can thus be taken into consideration..."

[Mini-Mer]

And now back to the OP'S topic...
I am suspecting researcher bias at play in your experience.

Could it be that the two single women were aware you are a single male?
If so, that can definitely skew their reactions.  They may actively avoid any encouragement,  no matter how small, if they sense that it might be misconstrued as interest.  Especially in a work setting.

And they may get a lot of criticism of their lifestyles & 'choices' as single women, and be proportionately more defensive of them.

Single woman reacting unfavorably here!  ;-)  I agree with Rezdent and tanhanivar - the personal finances discussion doesn't just appear out of thin air - the source (i.e. you) and the context is affecting your results.

I recently got trapped in an epic explanation of how my car problem was Not What It Seemed and so I don't need a new car, but if I'm going to get a new car I need to do X, Y, and Z and don't even think about going car-shopping without a man...  I had already researched the symptoms, taken the car to a mechanic, considered X, Y, and Z, and done 9/10 of the car-shopping online, and still spent an hour (at least!) defending my decisions and basic competence.   

Unsolicited advice about how to fix my [car, computer, health, finances, relationship status, etc.] often does have a distinct barnyard odor to me.  Nothing to do with the topic or my level of interest - I'd just much rather research than be advised, since I am the expert on my life. 

To address the actual question - when I've had similar conversations re: my phone plan, the people who respond with interest have never heard of the prepaid-type phone plans at all and aren't attached to their phones, or are specifically looking to change phones/plans.   I've never noticed a gender factor.

[samburger]

I got three paragraphs into the original post and I had to come down here and say this: LOL

As a rule, no man should ever begin a lengthy--or short!--post/sentence/statement/breath with, "As a man, here's a few things I've noticed about women...".

#yesallmen

[NoraLenderbee]

I got three paragraphs into the original post and I had to come down here and say this: LOL

As a rule, no man should ever begin a lengthy--or short!--post/sentence/statement/breath with, "As a man, here's a few things I've noticed about women...".

#yesallmen

LOL.

"As a Nice Guy, I've noticed that women always prefer to date jerks. Why is that?"

[Beric01]

I got three paragraphs into the original post and I had to come down here and say this: LOL

As a rule, no man should ever begin a lengthy--or short!--post/sentence/statement/breath with, "As a man, here's a few things I've noticed about women...".

#yesallmen

Isn't that a logical fallacy (ad hominem)?

I can still point out a chair isn't well made if I'm not a carpenter.

Who a person is has no bearing on their argument. Either it's a good argument or it isn't.

[Peony]

I have no particular thoughts on the gender question, but I think there is something to the notion  someone expressed earlier of the single person often being hobbled by having to make financial decisions in a vacuum. I am a partnered, mustachian female. I have a single, previously non-mustachian, female friend who lives in a high COL area and endured a layoff and other bad stuff in the recession. Through supporting her emotionally during her bad time, I've been totally upfront with her about all my finances, and she's opened up to me about hers. And now we check in with each other DAILY about our to-do lists, small and large financial wins, frugality, etc. I know how much money she makes and spends and she knows how much I make and spend, which is something I never knew about anyone else besides my boyfriend. We call each other for advice and reality checks. I guess you could say my female friend and I have become financially intimate.

Interestingly, we've BOTH made huge strides since "allying" in this way, but the shift in her thinking is striking. She spent a day optimizing her phone and other bills, saved a bundle and actually told me it was my influence that made that happen. (Of course I felt great when she said that.) So I'm not sure its marriage per se as much as having a thoughtful financial confidant(e) of some sort that makes the difference.

I just heard this guy on NPR last night, talking about the creativity specifically of pairs of people (vs. large groups or individuals) working together, and this whole discussion rang a bell for me. http://www.hmhco.com/shop/books/Powers-of-Two/9780544031593

[davef]

I'm not sure if it is rampant enough to affect national statistics, but all 3 hairdressers I dated did not report a large portion (as much as 70%) of their earnings.
Also, I am a ASE certified mechanic (moved on to a new career), and dont think the jobs are comparable. Not in knowledge required (or time required to establish proficiency) , working conditions, liability, or supply vs. demand

[Celda]

You still haven't provided any evidence that women work less than men or choose professions that require less sacrifice and pay less. Please provide the scientific study and/or statistics to back up your claim that these are true. Because, as I stated in my reply, they aren't necessarily true.

If you are not aware of these facts, then you are too uninformed to discuss the wage gap.

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0011.pdf

Page 8 of the PDF - 57% of hours worked by men.

Even when examining only full-time workers (workers who work at least 35 hours a week), men still work more.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat22.pdf

Men, 16 years and over - average hours 40.8

Women, 16 years and over - average hours 36.0

As for men being more likely to choose jobs that require sacrifice:

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0011.pdf

Page 8 on the PDF says it all - despite men working only 57% of hours, they made up 92% of workplace deaths.

Again, the facts don't change simply because you dislike them.

It is not a statement of fact. There are plenty of journalists on the other side who have argued that the 75-cent figure is true because of X, Y, and Z. Does that mean that that is fact?

Saying something does not make something a fact.

A fact must be proven. And it has been proven that the 75-cent figure does not compare men and women working the same job, nor the same hours. This is not a secret - it is publicly stated that the figure simply compares all men who work full-time (that is, 35 or more hours a week) with all women who work full-time.

It is sad to see you denying these facts.

[gildedbutterfly]

Hi, Celda. For the sake of others in this forum, who have made clear they'd rather get back on topic, I won't respond. If you'd like to continue the discussion, and see some numbers that dispute what you posted and some studies that show that men and women working the same jobs with the same level of prestige, educational background, and hours do make different amounts, feel free to PM me and I'm happy to continue talking.

Thank you, though, for finally providing some statistics to back up the claims. I appreciate that you took the time to look them up and share.

[Daisy]

The two unattached women (one divorced and one single) were mildly disgusted, our divorcee declared "I don't think fifty bucks a month is worth not having an Iphone like some loser" (at the time Ting did not have the Iphone) and the singleton listened carefully but ultimately declared "The problem with that is, the only way you save any money is if you never call or text anybody, so if you're saving money that means you're a loser."  Their general cues were as if I had just told them about having bad diarrhea with intense and quite unnecessary olfactory detail.

And now back to the OP'S topic...
I am suspecting researcher bias at play in your experience.

Could it be that the two single women were aware you are a single male?
If so, that can definitely skew their reactions.  They may actively avoid any encouragement,  no matter how small, if they sense that it might be misconstrued as interest.  Especially in a work setting.

They may get a lot of criticism of their lifestyles & 'choices' as single women, and be proportionately more defensive of them.

Yep, back to the OP!

Maybe they didn't like the idea of a guy "fixing" things for them by suggesting they made a bad choice and he has a better one. Lots of things that it could be.

I personally think Lal's pool of women and men is way to small to make any rational comparison. I also think (in my experience) that most, if not all, of the things he said are wrong.   They seem to be based on stereotypes and not overall reality - although I respect that that is his reality and experience. I believe people are individuals who act/react and behave in all sort of manners for all sorts of reasons, and that pegging them as all one way or another is false.

A possible scenario Lals may have overlooked:

Maybe these single women have an over-developed mental capacity to mentally note your suggestion in their short-term memories without having to write it down and will follow up on your excellent suggestion later.

Simultaneously, they have been wanting to call you a loser for quite some time and this was a perfect underhanded method of doing so. Not what we’d call you here as a lovable member of our forum though…

Just throwing that out there. ;-)