I think there is something to the notion that gender pay inequity is partly due to women still more frequently being the caregiver at home - the person who takes time off due to tend to sick kids/parents/… - and there is a career cost to that.
But there’s a difference between “still more likely to have that role”/“society still assumes that…” and that common belief.
I know the priority I’ve given to taking care of my wife and late father have definitely impacted my salary level. It’s not a choice I would prefer to have made…but it was the right choice to make.
At this point I don’t care that much. Think of it this way - would you rather the salary surveys go up, or down? Up means that you can make more by applying elsewhere, that no matter what happens at your current job, your next job will be better - plenty of opportunity!
If you found yourself all of a sudden making more than 99% of actuaries, not so much.
I’ve past the threshold where I feel extremely comfortable. So at this point work/life balance and how I am treated at my job are way more important than more money.
That said, I think even knowing that I still sometimes think about making more. Seems human nature to do so. I’m around middle of the range right now. Every time I’ve hopped jobs it increases over middle, but it slowly comes back down the longer you stay. Right now I’m okay with that.
It is. And a lot of data shows this.
Also, tendencies not to ask for raises, not to jump ship as much as men do. Not as aggressive as men. (Note that non-aggressive men are also likely to be paid less.)
Add it all up, and the result is lower pay for women, in GENERAL.
It does NOT mean it should be applied in individual cases. Bosses who do might find their jobs leaning heavily toward interviewing new candidates for open positions.
Hey, grump all you want. I haven’t looked at the salary survey in at least 10 years, so ignorance is bliss, I guess.
I do not think that survey is actuarially sound. I’d need to see all the data, then get all actuarial on it. Need to break down by Area and by Title (if that can be well-defined).
I guess many of us younger fellows who are married to someone with a similar socioeconomic status are nearing half a million dollars of household income per annum…older fellows…probably more…so even if you’re below the regression line, by all means that’s quite a lifestyle you can afford.
More money is nice but at this point it’s like you already beat the game and are just racking up points on the leaderboard. At some point maybe you’d get more enjoyment out of playing another game.
Oh that reminds me, I need to update my $1,000,000 thread.
That much is probably true, on average. I mean, that explains a lot of the difference in compensation.
It’s not even close to being universally true though, and even more importantly it’s absolutely not a reason to pay a particular woman less or not consider her for a promotion simply because you assume that she fits the stereotype.
Similar to years ago when someone noticed that female players on Jeopardy were winning less often, and when they did win, the won on average less than the men.
So everyone was all up in arms that the questions were biased to males.
When someone did a deep dive, much of it could be explained by the Double Jeopardy and Final Jeopardy wagering. Males were more aggressive in their wagers with led to larger payouts.