Author Topic: Personal Observation of a Gendered Pattern in Personal Finance Discourse  (Read 21258 times)

LalsConstant

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 439
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.

BlueMR2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2313
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.

While single, trying to look flashy and awesome (by using stuff).  When married, comfortable, no further need to impress?  I can say that meets my observations as well.

Seems to be similar in males, but the married dropoff is less pronounced.

fallstoclimb

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1090
I have lots to say about this!

First, realize that using your coworkers as an informative subgroup is inherently biased.

Second, I suspect that *in general* single men are also worse about money.  Single people are less likely to have long-term plans that demand financial planning, like saving up for the downpayment of a house or sending their kids to college.  Their increased mobility probably limits longterm planning.  Plus -- and I apologize to single people out there, I do not mean to be offensive but this is factually true -- married people always score higher, as a group, on basically all health and wealth measures.

Thirdly, yes, women are socialized to be spendier, just like we are socialized to be nicer and prettier.  We are supposed to spend more on clothes and beauty and shopping for fun.  Plus, we tend to pay more for certain services than men do (tax on women). 

That said, women are actually better investors than men (don't have a reference handy but I just read this in How a Second Grader Beats Wall Street).  So don't pat yourself on the back too much!  ;-)

teen persuasion

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1226
I'm curious about what the male response pattern is.

Mrs. Frugalwoods

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
  • Location: Vermont
That's an interesting observation. In my own personal experience (with all caveats for the limited sample size, etc, etc, etc and YMMV), as a gal who is married to a super frugal guy, my incentives are to save. There's nothing in my life that incentivizes me to spend.

My DH doesn't care about my clothes, hair, nearly non-existent make-up, etc. He cares about how we're planning for our future. However, not to say this can't happen for folks who are single as well. I just note that for me personally, I'm not trying to attract a partner or impress anyone (again, not to say that single people ARE trying to attract a partner, it's just that I'm not). My post-married behavior is hands-down more frugal than my pre-married behavior.

I'm interested to read what others have to share on the topic.

MoneyCat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1752
  • Location: New Jersey
Women have a lot of pressure of them to spend lots of money because they are constantly told that they aren't good enough as they are and they need to buy XYZ to have value.  Men face those pressures too, but not to the extent of women.  I think women really get the most out of embracing Mustachianism.

gecko10x

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
    • SawyerPF
I have nothing interesting to say on the topic.

However, I'm amazed this thread has 5 reasoned responses and no screaming, flaming, bitching, etc. I wonder how long it will continue ;-)  Also, kudos to the OP for such a well-caveat-ed post.

Zikoris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4536
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Vancouver, BC
  • Vancouverstachian
I've noticed a similar pattern among women I know. It's unfortunate, because the ones who could benefit the most from cutting expenses seem to be the least interested, or even outright hostile to the idea.

hybrid

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Richmond, Virginia
  • A hybrid of MMM and thoughtful consumer.
One of the leading sources of marital strife is, wait for it, money problems. Ergo, it's fairly safe to say that a divorcee has a substantial likelihood of being poor with money. Lord knows, anecdotally speaking, I've seen my share of failed marriages where money was part of the problem and after the divorce the divorcee is no wiser than before.

Perhaps what you are observing in your smallish sample size is a disproportionate number of divorced people who are already bad with money to begin with. Their money problems would exist whether they are married or divorced, but having those money problems increases the likelihood of divorce. Thus the divorcee who turns their nose up at cheaper cellular.

Regarding single people, I think it's safe to say that a lot of people (especially very private people) make money choices in a vacuum, and therefore often make poor choices. Anecdotally speaking, I see a lot of this as well. Married couples tend to make decisions jointly, and if either partner has reservations about questionable financial decisions, that "veto" is more likely to present itself.

I don't know if there is any validity to any of this, but perhaps it helps explain the pattern you've observed.

sheepstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2417
Regarding your experience, Lals, perhaps it's simply that agreeableness makes women more marriageable.  What you'd want to do is get someone similar to yourself to go into the same group and bring up the topic of highly expensive phone plans.  While the frugal married ladies might politely demur, their cues and body language might still be calculated to make the speaker feel like his ideas, which he feels excited about, are appreciated and respected.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
As a married woman, I'd say there was no difference in how I handled money when I was young and single (including as a child) and now.  I have always been a saver.  As a biostatistician, your N values are too low to have an meaningful data or conclusions from said data, therefore your conclusions are invalid.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2014, 07:13:40 PM by Gin1984 »

4alpacas

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1825
As a biostatistician, your N values are too low to have an meaningful data or conclusions from said data, therefore your conclusions are invalid.

For you, Gin1984!

rachael talcott

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
  • Age: 49
  • Location: TN
I'm a never-partnered female and am more frugal than most people around me.  I decided when I started my first job (at 28 after getting my PhD) that I wanted to retire early, and have saved on average more than half my income since then, despite a stretch in a high COL area.  Now I'm living mostly off of income from rental houses and saving almost all my salary. 

In my non-statistically-significant interactions with other people, it is more often the men who think my FIRE plans are really interesting and want to have a conversation about such things.  I haven't noticed that married women are interested.  But I think part of that is that I live in a conservative part of the country where married women tend to be really, really busy.  It falls to them to do most of the work of raising kids and taking care of the household, and they leave thinking about retirement savings to their husbands. 

Beric01

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
  • Law-abiding cyclist
I'm not going to say this is or isn't gendered. But couldn't it be that the type of person who gets stays married is just also more financially responsible? I often feel like I'm the only single guy who doesn't want to spend like crazy.

It's just like owning a house. Owning a house is not a secret to FI at all (I plan to reach FI while renting, never owning). But the vast majority of financially responsible people also happen to own a house. It's the "thing to do".

We're dealing with the issue of correlation, not causation here IMO.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2014, 12:35:52 PM by Beric01 »

rujancified

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 195
  • Age: 45
  • Location: NC
Same caveats as yours. Except I'm female.

Add in that I'm talking about women who are all at least college educated (most have advanced degrees in non-STEM) and are in their mid-30s now.

Single friends:

1 Artist/Student (for advanced degree): Probably would be interested in saving the money?
5 (edited) HCOLA Median-to-higher earners: Maybe one or two of them would be interested
1 in short term retirement for medical reason: Probably wouldn't because she is on the phone a TON.

Married friends:

5 SAHM/3 of them former teachers. All have 2-3 kids now. Maybe two would interested in saving $50 on a cell phone bill, but all are pretty careful household budget-ers.
1 STEM PHD, one kid. Immigrant parents, she'd totally be on board with saving cash on phones. She'd have done so as a single person, even in her early 20s.
2 high profile career women w/advanced degrees/no kids planned: Doubtful they'd be interested, but the phones are probably subsidized by work anyway.

So, what I'm seeing is that, at least in my equally small/unreasonable sample set, I'm not seeing what you saw. Our results are probably equally skewed, right? I promise that 0 of my tech-nerd male friends would be up for losing data service, though :)

Personally, my husband and I pay way too much for a "Family Plan" for the two of us and I'm beginning to research how to fix while keeping a similar level of service. I'm not a big phone person and we currently have a landline b/c I've been wfh.

ETA: I was a disaster w/money until I was about 27. Then I realized that there wasn't any magic going on behind the curtain, righted the ship, and am working towards an earlier than average retirement. Good feeling, that.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2014, 12:19:45 PM by rujancified »

CommonCents

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2363
Cause and effect.

Consider whether your married coworkers are more likely to be and stay married simply because they have better attitudes regarding money.

Thirdly, yes, women are socialized to be spendier, just like we are socialized to be nicer and prettier.  We are supposed to spend more on clothes and beauty and shopping for fun.  Plus, we tend to pay more for certain services than men do (tax on women). 

I want to object to this, but I recognize what you're saying as having value (although I'm not sure about the "nicer" bit - have you seen Mean Girls??).  Also to toss in there - when part of a couple, the woman tends to do the joint spending I've generally observed.  Certainly in my personal experience I'm the one that buys the wedding gift for friends, shops around for a bargain on a patio set, and plans out the grocery trip.  (Only exception is that my husband pays for meals out.)

I'll also add that single people in general are less likely to own a home.  Buying a home tends to help people not good with saving to save a minumum amount a month, plus it tends to be a bit costlier than renting thus leaving less of a paycheck to spend on frivolous items.

hybrid

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Richmond, Virginia
  • A hybrid of MMM and thoughtful consumer.
I'm not going to say this is or isn't gendered. But couldn't it be that the type of person who gets stays married is just also more financially responsible?

My edit above, does that ring truer? Any two fools in love can say I do.

hybrid

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Richmond, Virginia
  • A hybrid of MMM and thoughtful consumer.
I'm a never-partnered female and am more frugal than most people around me.  I decided when I started my first job (at 28 after getting my PhD) that I wanted to retire early, and have saved on average more than half my income since then, despite a stretch in a high COL area.  Now I'm living mostly off of income from rental houses and saving almost all my salary. 

In my non-statistically-significant interactions with other people, it is more often the men who think my FIRE plans are really interesting and want to have a conversation about such things.  I haven't noticed that married women are interested.  But I think part of that is that I live in a conservative part of the country where married women tend to be really, really busy.  It falls to them to do most of the work of raising kids and taking care of the household, and they leave thinking about retirement savings to their husbands.

My close social circle is men ranging from 45-52. I've noticed that the guys who have kids still have them in school and the constant juggle of raising a family means they often have not stepped back to consider what life will be like when the kids leave the nest. Retirement? No time for that, kids have soccer practice, big deadline at work, etc. They are focused on keeping all of those various balls in the air, and you can only keep so many balls in the air at one time. As I had my two kids earlier than most of them, I am among the first to emerge into a semi-empty-nest and starting to push them on the questions they haven't asked themselves yet.. Mustachian Buddy is single and far more focused on the future than any of them.

Beric01

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
  • Law-abiding cyclist
I'm not going to say this is or isn't gendered. But couldn't it be that the type of person who gets stays married is just also more financially responsible?

My edit above, does that ring truer? Any two fools in love can say I do.

Sure, I'll accept that edit.

But you get all of these studies saying that getting married has so many benefits, from higher income to better health, etc. The problem is, it's all correlation.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
Cause and effect.

Consider whether your married coworkers are more likely to be and stay married simply because they have better attitudes regarding money.

Thirdly, yes, women are socialized to be spendier, just like we are socialized to be nicer and prettier.  We are supposed to spend more on clothes and beauty and shopping for fun.  Plus, we tend to pay more for certain services than men do (tax on women). 

I want to object to this, but I recognize what you're saying as having value (although I'm not sure about the "nicer" bit - have you seen Mean Girls??).  Also to toss in there - when part of a couple, the woman tends to do the joint spending I've generally observed.  Certainly in my personal experience I'm the one that buys the wedding gift for friends, shops around for a bargain on a patio set, and plans out the grocery trip.  (Only exception is that my husband pays for meals out.)

I'll also add that single people in general are less likely to own a home.  Buying a home tends to help people not good with saving to save a minumum amount a month, plus it tends to be a bit costlier than renting thus leaving less of a paycheck to spend on frivolous items.
I believe girls are socialize to appear nice to authority figures/those with power.

CommonCents

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2363
Cause and effect.

Consider whether your married coworkers are more likely to be and stay married simply because they have better attitudes regarding money.

Thirdly, yes, women are socialized to be spendier, just like we are socialized to be nicer and prettier.  We are supposed to spend more on clothes and beauty and shopping for fun.  Plus, we tend to pay more for certain services than men do (tax on women). 

I want to object to this, but I recognize what you're saying as having value (although I'm not sure about the "nicer" bit - have you seen Mean Girls??).  Also to toss in there - when part of a couple, the woman tends to do the joint spending I've generally observed.  Certainly in my personal experience I'm the one that buys the wedding gift for friends, shops around for a bargain on a patio set, and plans out the grocery trip.  (Only exception is that my husband pays for meals out.)

I'll also add that single people in general are less likely to own a home.  Buying a home tends to help people not good with saving to save a minumum amount a month, plus it tends to be a bit costlier than renting thus leaving less of a paycheck to spend on frivolous items.
I believe girls are socialize to appear nice to authority figures/those with power.

Ahh, that may be true.  You catch more flies with honey...  (Although I have to say, I always set out vinegar for my fruit flies!)

okashira

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 416
Beware of cause/effect.

I'd say the 2 women were single because of their nasty/abrasive personalities (also related to their spendiness)
And the other 3 were married because of their pleasant personalities (either acting interested, or actually interested in saving)

Not the other way around.

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
  • Location: CT
A) Like hybrid said consider that for divorced people financial strife is often a cause of the divorce. Being shitty at personal financial matters won't change if you're single, married, or divorced if you're just shitty at personal financial matters.

B) You may have put in the caveats of knowing it is purely anecdotal but you aren't actually following through on that knowledge and jumping to -

SINGLE/DIVORCED


The intellectual equivalent to all the people I hear say "I'm not racist but..." followed by their racist comments.

Spartana

  • Guest
My personal experience - as a female who spent her entire working life, and most of her social life, almost completely with males - is that both genders seem to spend equally while single - but often on different things. The single men I knew/know are just as concerned with how they appear as the single females I know. They often seem to spend on things that society tells us are important to the opposite gender to make one self appear more desirable. This seems more pervasive here in sunny coastal SoCal (The O.C.) where upscale status and image seem to rule spending behavior. In other, more down-to-earth, places I have lived like Alaska or Maine, there is less focus on money and materialism (and image). So maybe it's less about gender and more about what part of the country you live in. I know that when I live in our areas, meeting a frugal down to earth non-trendy guy who shared my values was much easier then it is here in SoCal.

And the married people I know are even bigger spenders who are more focused on image. They want the big house, the Mercedes, the boats and jet skiis and other toys - and they get them...on credit. I have found, at least here, that married people are much more irresponsible with money and much more image conscious then single people. Again, that may be more because of location then anything else.

Also, this view of singles as more spendy compared to married may be more a function of age. Younger people (except here) do seem to be less interested in being frugal overall. And divorced people maybe looking for mates and feel that they have to spend to keep up a more youthful or trendy image

As for myself, I was frugal single, frugal married (to a very frugal guy) and frugal (and FIRE'd at age 42!!) divorced.  Maybe it's all just a function of personality rather then gender or region.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2014, 01:30:17 PM by Spartana »

mjmphx

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Brief overview of my surrounding best-known young couples/singles:

Male single teacher, recent grad, not necessarily FI-oriented, but eager to save money.  Have not observed stupid spendy-habits.
Male single worker at the city, not FI-oriented, very content with a minimalist lifestyle (roommates, slight anti-consumerist bent), but travels.
Female single chef/sous-chef, NOT FI-oriented, likes fancy cookery and nice things, but dealing well with a recent job loss (taking on a roommate, sold car).

Couple, teachers, I referred them to MMM and they both dove in.  Husband has weakness for books.  Wife is better at being consistently FI-oriented (husband likes teaching, not sure he ever wants to retire, but understands that being FI is about doing what you like).
Couple, single income, wife in grad school, NOT FI-oriented (wife thought MMM required her to do lame things like fix stuff - she really would do well in a studio flat in Europe...).  Husband is more interested in saving bucks here and there, but also has costy-hobbies/interests/goals more than wife does.
Me & DW, single income, wife stays-at-home with two kiddos, again, my DW is probably more consistent about saving money than me, though I've stopped almost all costy-hobbies and am working towards FI, but doing work I like rather than the work that pays most.

It seems pretty scattershot.  The trend I might advance is that women may be more consistent in their behavior than men.  But, that behavior can be frugal or spendy, depending on their life choices and philosophy.  The menfolks might be happy to have lifehacks to save some dollars, but will probably be as excited to spend those "extra" dollars quicker.  But much depends on personality, and like Spartana said, geography plays a big role, too.

Spartana

  • Guest
I'm not going to say this is or isn't gendered. But couldn't it be that the type of person who gets stays married is just also more financially responsible?

My edit above, does that ring truer? Any two fools in love can say I do.
Of course many people STAY married because they are financially irresponsible and a divorce would bankrupt both of them.  Some people (me and the ex-hub) were mega-financially responsible so made getting a divorce (for reasons having nothing to do with money or spending habits) and easy and financially painless thing for us both.

gildedbutterfly

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 62
  • Location: New York
  • "We two alone will...laugh at gilded butterflies"

And the married people I know are even bigger spenders who are more focused on image. They want the big house, the Mercedes, the boats and jet skiis and other toys - and they get them...on credit. I have found, at least here, that married people are much more irresponsible with money and much more image conscious then single people.


Same here. Besides the single part of me, female part of me, and scientist part of me simultaneously rebelling at the OP's observations, I'll just say that, as a single woman in her mid-30s, my single girl friends and I are much more frugal than any married people I know or any single guys, who tend to be very spendy on tech and other toys.

Then again, most of my single, female friends are in their 30s and well-educated. Most of us belong to a generation of women who see marriage as less desirable than it has been for past generations, and plan on being single for the rest of our lives. Since statistically we will likely make less than bachelors, and we don't have the "fallback" of a spouse to help us out, we are all much more aware of what we have to do to take care of ourselves financially.

Finally, it could be that age is a confounding variable in observations of single women vs. married women. That is, married women tend to be older than single women, and older people tend to be more frugal and financially aware, so perhaps it's the age, not marital status, that's influencing the outcome.

Another Reader

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5327
My experience has been the higher up the ladder you go and the more technical/professional the job is, the less the observation about single vs. married is true.  Admin staff generally are more into clothes, phones and the latest entertainment.  Engineers, doctors, division managers, not so much.  Younger women also tend to be less cost conscious and more image conscious.  Older women are more established and comfortable with who they are.  Younger people, especially young singles, generally don't think about the future as much as older married folks with kids.  I think having a child changes people's perspective.  Suddenly, there is the future to think about and plan.

Cwadda

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2178
  • Age: 29
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?
« Last Edit: July 24, 2014, 02:03:43 PM by Cwadda »

hybrid

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Richmond, Virginia
  • A hybrid of MMM and thoughtful consumer.
I'm not going to say this is or isn't gendered. But couldn't it be that the type of person who gets stays married is just also more financially responsible?

My edit above, does that ring truer? Any two fools in love can say I do.

Sure, I'll accept that edit.

But you get all of these studies saying that getting married has so many benefits, from higher income to better health, etc. The problem is, it's all correlation.

Mustachian Buddy and I have that conversation now and then. The best monetary thing about being single? You don't have to get any buy-in from the significant other (about anything, really). The worst monetary part of being single? You don't get a second opinion from the significant other.

sheepstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2417
Younger women also tend to be less cost conscious and more image conscious.  Older women are more established and comfortable with who they are.

While I tend to agree with the whole statement, the crossed-out part is a common argument that I think tends to de-legitimize the behavior of younger women.  What I've observed is that investing in one's appearance pays much bigger dividends for young women compared to men/older women (both professionally and personally), so it's rational of them to do it.

Beric01

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
  • Law-abiding cyclist
I'm not going to say this is or isn't gendered. But couldn't it be that the type of person who gets stays married is just also more financially responsible?

My edit above, does that ring truer? Any two fools in love can say I do.

Sure, I'll accept that edit.

But you get all of these studies saying that getting married has so many benefits, from higher income to better health, etc. The problem is, it's all correlation.

Mustachian Buddy and I have that conversation now and then. The best monetary thing about being single? You don't have to get any buy-in from the significant other (about anything, really). The worst monetary part of being single? You don't get a second opinion from the significant other.

Well, you have articles like this one which show that single people, on average, do save far less. I think why this is is obvious - when you're planning for more people than just yourself, you tend to think longer-term and give in to impulses less. But I'm not going to say this should be the case - I'm an exception.

My co-worker and his wife are continually buying luxury products because the other one bought something, so they're "justified". IMO this could end up worse than being single.

EricL

  • Guest
Hmmm. So your saying you've seen men and women looking at money differently, right?  I think that's true to some extent but mostly I agree with Gin.  Your sample size is too small.  But even if it wasn't, I think there's a tendency by both sexes to weigh each others' choices more heavily for or against because they are not easily understood.  Like the woman who disparages her husband's sporting goods purchases ("you already have an expensive reel.  Why get another!?") and a man who looks down on his wife's grooming habits ("you're wearing shoes all day.  You don't need a pedicure!).  Throw in a tendency to emphasize the negative, ignore the obvious, and general misunderstanding (have you ever heard a guy say "I'm so proud of My wife.  She switched to a cheaper hair dye and saved us$100 a year!) and we're off to the races.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9923
  • Registered member
Who has access to the site analytics to give us an idea of married/unmarried male/female vist/retention ratios?

franklin w. dixon

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 283
When I told my sahm wife about this blog she said, "Oh? I don't care about that at all. I'm retired already. Hahahaha but have fun at work." The family that trolls together stays together as I always say.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15961
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Let me start with a few facts. Women earn less throughout their career - in Australia it has been consistently put at 17-20% less for the same job. Women also earn less because of career breaks and because women's work is paid less than men's work (eg. hair dressers are paid less than motor mechanics even though the same amount of skill and training is required)- in Australia it has been put at about 40%. Despite this, there are many more male bankrupts than female bankrupts. I have seen elsewhere on this forum an estmate of the number of women vs men in MMM - and there were (I think) significantly more women than men - from memory this was 60% vs 40% or more biased toward women.

This is not anecdotal - these are real whole of population figures.

All of this means that perception is NOT reality, and these figures tend to indicate than women are BETTER money managers than men.

So why would the perception be there? Do men tend to skite more than women about their conquests (including money conquests)? Are men expected to be more financially literate than women, so we just don't notice? Do women tend to spend money more on stuff (shoes, handbags) than men (alcohol, night out with mates)? Or do women tend to buy cheaper stuff (shoes, handbags) than men (cars, boats), so there is a lot more of it around?

Zikoris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4536
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Vancouver, BC
  • Vancouverstachian
I can think of two reasons right off the bat for more bankruptcies among men, not necessarily related to money mismanagement - personal business failure (men are much more likely to start their own businesses, and small businesses have a pretty high failure rate even under the best conditions) and getting cleaned out in a divorce.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15961
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
I can think of two reasons right off the bat for more bankruptcies among men, not necessarily related to money mismanagement - personal business failure (men are much more likely to start their own businesses, and small businesses have a pretty high failure rate even under the best conditions) and getting cleaned out in a divorce.
These can be looked at from different perspectives. As we are looking at everything in this thread from a financial management perspective. These men have made the poor financial management decision to start a business that results in failure. Marriage is the accumulation of assets together - the idea of being "cleaned out" assumes that all the assets belong to one party, and are "cleaned out" by the other. Statistics show that both men and women are far worse off financially after divorce, but that women tend not to recover financially to the same extent as men 10 years after divorce. This tends to be for a variety of reasons - the chief being that they have often had their work experience lapse, and have incredible difficulty getting a job and earning a reasonable wage, rather than poor financial management.

Spartana

  • Guest
Let me start with a few facts. Women earn less throughout their career. 
That not always true. It all depends on the job. Many women, at least here in the USA, work jobs that are paid the same men. Many are in fields that were once male dominated in the past but now have more women in them.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15961
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Let me start with a few facts. Women earn less throughout their career. 
That not always true. It all depends on the job. Many women, at least here in the USA, work jobs that are paid the same men. Many are in fields that were once male dominated in the past but now have more women in them.
Women in Australia are supposed to be paid the same as men. It doesn't quite happen that way. I was quoting the Australian figures because  know them off the top of my head. From the OECD comparison of gender equity, I believe that the US has similar levels of actual disparity of pay - although from memory, it is a slightly smaller actual difference than for Australia. As Australia is one of the most gender equal countries in the world as far as the OECD comparison, I think you will find that the US is behind in a number of the statistics that are used in this study.

Spartana

  • Guest
Let me start with a few facts. Women earn less throughout their career. 
That not always true. It all depends on the job. Many women, at least here in the USA, work jobs that are paid the same men. Many are in fields that were once male dominated in the past but now have more women in them.
Women in Australia are supposed to be paid the same as men. It doesn't quite happen that way. I was quoting the Australian figures because  know them off the top of my head. From the OECD comparison of gender equity, I believe that the US has similar levels of actual disparity of pay - although from memory, it is a slightly smaller actual difference than for Australia. As Australia is one of the most gender equal countries in the world as far as the OECD comparison, I think you will find that the US is behind in a number of the statistics that are used in this study.
I agree that many women are paid less for the reasons you cited. I was just saying that many aren't. We are free to choose any job field we want and can be mechanics rather then hair dressers. So I think that if instead of comparing different jobs and the pay difference between those jobs, and instead compare pay levels between genders for the same jobs, you'll find the pay is more equal. i.e. compare what a male hairdresser earns compared to a female hairdresser, or a male mechanic to a female mechanic.

Zikoris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4536
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Vancouver, BC
  • Vancouverstachian
I can think of two reasons right off the bat for more bankruptcies among men, not necessarily related to money mismanagement - personal business failure (men are much more likely to start their own businesses, and small businesses have a pretty high failure rate even under the best conditions) and getting cleaned out in a divorce.
These can be looked at from different perspectives. As we are looking at everything in this thread from a financial management perspective. These men have made the poor financial management decision to start a business that results in failure. Marriage is the accumulation of assets together - the idea of being "cleaned out" assumes that all the assets belong to one party, and are "cleaned out" by the other. Statistics show that both men and women are far worse off financially after divorce, but that women tend not to recover financially to the same extent as men 10 years after divorce. This tends to be for a variety of reasons - the chief being that they have often had their work experience lapse, and have incredible difficulty getting a job and earning a reasonable wage, rather than poor financial management.

I wouldn't necessarily accuse anyone who's had a business fail of poor financial management. I've heard that something like 80% of businesses fail in the first few years - there's more at play than just that.

As for getting cleaned out in a divorce, I think it's pretty well known that courts are EXTREMELY biased in favour of women during divorce proceedings (in North America anyway, can't comment on Australia). Some of the amounts awarded for child support and alimony beggar belief.

You also have the extremely unfair situation where you had a spender and a saver who both worked, and suddenly the spender is entitled to half the saver's efforts. I really feel for anyone in this situation - that would be hard to stomach. We've certainly seen enough case studies here in the forums of couples who earn similar amounts but have separate finances and save very differently.

gildedbutterfly

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 62
  • Location: New York
  • "We two alone will...laugh at gilded butterflies"
Let me start with a few facts. Women earn less throughout their career. 
That not always true. It all depends on the job. Many women, at least here in the USA, work jobs that are paid the same men. Many are in fields that were once male dominated in the past but now have more women in them.
Women in Australia are supposed to be paid the same as men. It doesn't quite happen that way. I was quoting the Australian figures because  know them off the top of my head. From the OECD comparison of gender equity, I believe that the US has similar levels of actual disparity of pay - although from memory, it is a slightly smaller actual difference than for Australia. As Australia is one of the most gender equal countries in the world as far as the OECD comparison, I think you will find that the US is behind in a number of the statistics that are used in this study.
I agree that many women are paid less for the reasons you cited. I was just saying that many aren't. We are free to choose any job field we want and can be mechanics rather then hair dressers. So I think that if instead of comparing different jobs and the pay difference between those jobs, and instead compare pay levels between genders for the same jobs, you'll find the pay is more equal. i.e. compare what a male hairdresser earns compared to a female hairdresser, or a male mechanic to a female mechanic.

And when you do that, it's still unequal. US statistics: http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2011/ted_20110216_data.htm

Spartana

  • Guest
Let me start with a few facts. Women earn less throughout their career. 
That not always true. It all depends on the job. Many women, at least here in the USA, work jobs that are paid the same men. Many are in fields that were once male dominated in the past but now have more women in them.
Women in Australia are supposed to be paid the same as men. It doesn't quite happen that way. I was quoting the Australian figures because  know them off the top of my head. From the OECD comparison of gender equity, I believe that the US has similar levels of actual disparity of pay - although from memory, it is a slightly smaller actual difference than for Australia. As Australia is one of the most gender equal countries in the world as far as the OECD comparison, I think you will find that the US is behind in a number of the statistics that are used in this study.
I agree that many women are paid less for the reasons you cited. I was just saying that many aren't. We are free to choose any job field we want and can be mechanics rather then hair dressers. So I think that if instead of comparing different jobs and the pay difference between those jobs, and instead compare pay levels between genders for the same jobs, you'll find the pay is more equal. i.e. compare what a male hairdresser earns compared to a female hairdresser, or a male mechanic to a female mechanic.

And when you do that, it's still unequal. US statistics: http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2011/ted_20110216_data.htm
I guess my experience was different. But then I was first military (and a branch of the armed forces that had 100% of all it's jobs specialties open to women and no combat restrictions) and then public service so pay rates are based on your job position and not you gender.

 But this link isn't really relevant to the equal pay for the same job since the jobs in each category were not listed. So maybe the difference between pay is based on higher number of women in lower paying jobs (i.e. clerical) for the same category compared to more men in higher paying jobs (i.e. engineering) for the same category. Say "agriculture". That would not show a same job/same or different pay comparison.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2014, 04:40:19 PM by Spartana »

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15961
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
I can think of two reasons right off the bat for more bankruptcies among men, not necessarily related to money mismanagement - personal business failure (men are much more likely to start their own businesses, and small businesses have a pretty high failure rate even under the best conditions) and getting cleaned out in a divorce.
These can be looked at from different perspectives. As we are looking at everything in this thread from a financial management perspective. These men have made the poor financial management decision to start a business that results in failure. Marriage is the accumulation of assets together - the idea of being "cleaned out" assumes that all the assets belong to one party, and are "cleaned out" by the other. Statistics show that both men and women are far worse off financially after divorce, but that women tend not to recover financially to the same extent as men 10 years after divorce. This tends to be for a variety of reasons - the chief being that they have often had their work experience lapse, and have incredible difficulty getting a job and earning a reasonable wage, rather than poor financial management.

I wouldn't necessarily accuse anyone who's had a business fail of poor financial management. I've heard that something like 80% of businesses fail in the first few years - there's more at play than just that.

As for getting cleaned out in a divorce, I think it's pretty well known that courts are EXTREMELY biased in favour of women during divorce proceedings (in North America anyway, can't comment on Australia). Some of the amounts awarded for child support and alimony beggar belief.

You also have the extremely unfair situation where you had a spender and a saver who both worked, and suddenly the spender is entitled to half the saver's efforts. I really feel for anyone in this situation - that would be hard to stomach. We've certainly seen enough case studies here in the forums of couples who earn similar amounts but have separate finances and save very differently.
I was talking about statistics that have been generated from the total population.

Yes, businesses fail for other reasons, but when statisticians look into failing businesses, poor financial management is one of the key factors.

Of course there are extremely sad situations where the outcome appears totally unfair - for instance my brother was taken to the cleaners by a very nasty wife even though they both have the children 50% of the time. There are plenty of stories on both sides in the forum. However, the statistics still say that men tend to be better off sooner than women, which is probably one factor in courts' draconian rulings.

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.

davef

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 240
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Wilsonville, OR
One of the leading sources of marital strife is, wait for it, money problems. Ergo, it's fairly safe to say that a divorcee has a substantial likelihood of being poor with money.

Or at least, one of the divorcees is poor with money. In my case (and my wife and I have battled over this many times) our money fights are between where to invest. I prefer investing in mutual funds a roth IRA and real estate, she prefers the mattress and savings accounts, 0 risk.

gildedbutterfly

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 62
  • Location: New York
  • "We two alone will...laugh at gilded butterflies"
Let me start with a few facts. Women earn less throughout their career. 
That not always true. It all depends on the job. Many women, at least here in the USA, work jobs that are paid the same men. Many are in fields that were once male dominated in the past but now have more women in them.
Women in Australia are supposed to be paid the same as men. It doesn't quite happen that way. I was quoting the Australian figures because  know them off the top of my head. From the OECD comparison of gender equity, I believe that the US has similar levels of actual disparity of pay - although from memory, it is a slightly smaller actual difference than for Australia. As Australia is one of the most gender equal countries in the world as far as the OECD comparison, I think you will find that the US is behind in a number of the statistics that are used in this study.
I agree that many women are paid less for the reasons you cited. I was just saying that many aren't. We are free to choose any job field we want and can be mechanics rather then hair dressers. So I think that if instead of comparing different jobs and the pay difference between those jobs, and instead compare pay levels between genders for the same jobs, you'll find the pay is more equal. i.e. compare what a male hairdresser earns compared to a female hairdresser, or a male mechanic to a female mechanic.

And when you do that, it's still unequal. US statistics: http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2011/ted_20110216_data.htm
I guess my experience was different. But then I was first military (and a branch of the armed forces that had 100% of all it's jobs specialties open to women and no combat restrictions) and then public service so pay rates are based on your job position and not you gender. And since the jobs in each category were not listed, maybe the difference between pay is based on higher number of women in lower paying jobs (i.e. clerical) for the same category compared to more men in higher paying jobs (i.e. engineering) for the same category. Say "agriculture". That would not show a same job/same job comparison.

There are certainly some women who do not make less than their male counterparts, but that's just not (statistically) the norm. There are some studies that have been done on same job/same job comparisons, and there is still a wage gap (don't have the studies right on hand, and too lazy to search them, but I know a couple of IO psych people who have done studies like that).

But you bring up an argument that is a very big part of the wage gap: two people of different genders in the same field, but different jobs. The glass ceiling is very real. Take the education sector, in which I've done quite a bit of research: both qualitative and quantitative research has shown that male teachers are more often promoted to administration (and often pressured to go into administration, even if they'd rather stay in the classroom). The statistics in that sector are alarming when you compare the gender breakdown for the sector to the gender breakdown for administration (especially administration at the district and state levels): the sector as a whole is female dominated, and yet the high level administrative jobs are male dominated. So saying, "Well, they might not be working the same jobs, even if they're in the same sector," is not a good argument that there is equity. It is, in fact, an argument against equity.

Spartana

  • Guest
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!

davef

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 240
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Wilsonville, OR
Having hired hundreds of males and females in several industries I can say the only thing I have seen personally that would explain the gender pay gap other than discrimination, (which, no doubt, accounts for part of the gap), is that in my experience, women tend to undervalue themselves more than men.

I went into every interview with a pay rate in my head for every position I was hiring for, a target cost. Most of the men asked for more. Sometimes way more, and I had to talk them down or say sarry I cant pay that much for this position. Many if not most of the women asked for less than what I expected to pay. It is important for employers to ask because if you are way out of line the person may take the job (If they are despairate) but will keep looking (because they want more) I had that happen a few times.

I'll never forget this young lady named Daisy. I was hiring a front end lead position (basically head cashier)  that pay range was 10-15$ per hour she had a very impressive resume, was by lingual, etc. As I was wrapping up the interview I would have said yes to 14 or maybe high 14s. I asked her what she wanted for pay and she said 10$. I told her I was going to start her at 12 and if she did as good as I expected she would be geeting a nice raise in 6 months, and she did.   

Spartana

  • Guest
But you bring up an argument that is a very big part of the wage gap: two people of different genders in the same field, but different jobs. The glass ceiling is very real. Take the education sector, in which I've done quite a bit of research: both qualitative and quantitative research has shown that male teachers are more often promoted to administration (and often pressured to go into administration, even if they'd rather stay in the classroom). The statistics in that sector are alarming when you compare the gender breakdown for the sector to the gender breakdown for administration (especially administration at the district and state levels): the sector as a whole is female dominated, and yet the high level administrative jobs are male dominated. So saying, "Well, they might not be working the same jobs, even if they're in the same sector," is not a good argument that there is equity. It is, in fact, an argument against equity.
I agree 100% that there is a high level of discrimination in both hiring and when it comes to promotions (and I think that's true of race and age as well as gender).  But I was more addressing the "welder A makes about the same as welder B" and not "welder A makes more then admin A". Glass ceilings and lack promotions due to discrimination and choosing to be on the parent-track (true for either gender) can all keep people in lower paid positions due to lack of promotions or lack of jobs. However, I contend that if 2 people are on equal footing educationally, training-wise, time on the job wise, and job-level wise that they probably make close to equal pay.  However I admit I could be wrong about that - just my personal experience.

Again sorry to derail the thread - where is Arebelspy when you need him :-)!
« Last Edit: July 24, 2014, 05:16:07 PM by Spartana »