2010 September 01 Wednesday
Smart Single Women Make More Money
All that's needed for women to close the wage gap with men is to work full time and forgo baby-making. Hey, is it time to celebrate this as a great discovery?
But now there's evidence that the ship may finally be turning around: according to a new analysis of 2,000 communities by a market research company, in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% higher than those of the guys in their peer group. In two cities, Atlanta and Memphis, those women are making about 20% more.
What is so special about Atlanta and Memphis? Why would guys in those cities be especially lagging the women? I can think of one idea. But I would expect it to be true of more than just those two cities.
This phenomenon is specific to smarter women who aren't reproducing. Hey, think this trend could cause problems in the long term? Devolutionary problems?
Here's the slightly deflating caveat: this reverse gender gap, as it's known, applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities. The rest of working women — even those of the same age, but who are married or don't live in a major metropolitan area — are still on the less scenic side of the wage divide.
I know a lot of women who are thoroughly into working part time so they can spend more time raising their kids. This means they make less money and are more reliant on hubbie's paycheck. But they really love their kids and like spending time with them. Yet their lower wages are decried in liberal feminist circles and signs of unfairness.
I think we should celebrate the smart women who so enjoy motherhood that they'd rather take days off from work to help at school or so they can take care of their sick kids or take their kids to museums or zoos or hiking. We should celebrate their having kids and passing along their smarter genes in the first place.
Or it could be simply that single women are more likely to sleep with their boss to climb the career ladder faster.
Or at least perhaps thats what the bosses think and are therefore biased against married women and favour singles.
Just cause someone is getting paid more doesn't mean they are better, there are a whole range of other factors, such as family connections, affirmative action rules etc.
Pretty much every viewpoint article that you find in the mainstream media these days is indirectly geared towards destroying the western civilization, or more specificaly, people descended from those who created it. Indirectly recommending dysgenics is one such means of accomplishing this. In a way they're securing their own readership. Dysgenics, IMO, is just as serious a problem as 3rd world immigration, poor legislation, etc.
This article also highlights that unproductive 'work' now dominates in the US. Many women are drawn towards field such as medicine, law and human relations. These won't help to close the trade deficit with China.
One aspect of the "wage gap" I never see mentioned is the extra income women receive simply by virtue of living longer. Women, on average, live almost twice as long post-65 as men do, meaning they collect more benefits from Social Security and from Medicare. A fair estimate would be that roughly 60% of such expenses go to women, meaning they receive half again as much as men ever do, despite the fact that men pay for at least half the costs of these programs. Those benefits from longer lifespans apply whether the woman was ever married or not.
In addition, widowed women also often receive benefits from their deceased husband's pension; benefit from savings, 401(k) and IRAs earned, in whole or in part, by the husband; and live in houses paid for, in whole or in part, by the husband. For some reason NOW never seems to bring this up. Like Reactionary_83 said, their whole goal seems to be to create an antagonistic relationship between men and women, rather than the symbiotic one that it should be, aparently in a goal to completely destroy Western Civilization.
My neighbor is an engineering manager at a famous ag equipment manufacturing company in the upper Midwest. The girls that run HR demand that he and the other engineering managers hire a quota of women and minorities. Do you realize how hard it is to get a girl engineer to (1) move to the Upper Midwest and (2) work with a bunch of farm boy engineers, and (3) travel around to rural areas testing and repairing Ag and construction equipment in the field, getting dirty and sweaty?
As a result, his company pays girl engineers with bachelors degrees as much as they pay men with masters degrees. It's common knowledge that the girl quota costs his company, but they need it for their diversity quota. The pity is that the girls do not want to be the breadwinner and support their families. They wind up getting married, getting pregnant (usually at an advanced age) and leaving. The US Supreme Court will not be happy until at least 50% of the engineers are women, no matter how much it costs. They are trying to bring their personnel costs down, however, so they are dumping more of the white males so they can hire cheaper Indians.
"As a result, his company pays girl engineers with bachelors degrees as much as they pay men with masters degrees. It's common knowledge that the girl quota costs his company, but they need it for their diversity quota. The pity is that the girls do not want to be the breadwinner and support their families. They wind up getting married, getting pregnant (usually at an advanced age) and leaving. The US Supreme Court will not be happy until at least 50% of the engineers are women, no matter how much it costs."
One could almost believe that countries to do not have such laws have engineered it so that the US has an enormous handicap ...