Capabilities of women and Market share

[Hitta]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/up...rops.html?_r=0

"A striking example is to be found in the field of recreation — working in parks or leading camps — which went from predominantly male to female from 1950 to 2000. Median hourly wages in this field declined 57 percentage points, accounting for the change in the value of the dollar, according to a complex formula used by Professor Levanon. The job of ticket agent also went from mainly male to female during this period, and wages dropped 43 percentage points.

The same thing happened when women in large numbers became designers (wages fell 34 percentage points), housekeepers (wages fell 21 percentage points) and biologists (wages fell 18 percentage points). The reverse was true when a job attracted more men. Computer programming, for instance, used to be a relatively menial role done by women. But when male programmers began to outnumber female ones, the job began paying more and gained prestige."

I do think there is a pay gap, but over time the pay gap has shrank quite considerably... and the majority of the numbers that people quote all the time that give it like a 30 cent pay gap have been pretty much thorougly disputed. These substantial pay increases and decreases though quoted in this article are not being thought about properly.

The 'parks and camps', know that National Parks have pretty much greatly thinned out their employees since 1950. This isn't a gender issue, it's practicality. Many of the jobs that were once done by park rangers and park workers are now done by machines and surveillance equipment. The parks aren't going to pay their small base of employees more for doing less.

In contrast to the 1950's there is only one hard sciences related field that pays well now, that is physics. Both Biologists and Chemist salaries have suffered. Also in the 1950s there were more job openings in the science field for those with Bachelors degrees, now these degrees bring you to lab tech hell.

Computer programming... probably the most hilarious on the list. Do I even need to explain why computer programmers make more money now?

I'm not quite sure what is meant by "housekeepers" and "designers", I can definitely see why housekeeping salaries have gone down? Do you know anyone that has one? More than likely these are people that work part time or as supplemental salary as the households cannot afford the workers.

[ashlesha]

I do think there is a pay gap, but over time the pay gap has shrank quite considerably... and the majority of the numbers that people quote all the time that give it like a 30 cent pay gap have been pretty much thorougly disputed. These substantial pay increases and decreases though quoted in this article are not being thought about properly.

The 'parks and camps', know that National Parks have pretty much greatly thinned out their employees since 1950. This isn't a gender issue, it's practicality. Many of the jobs that were once done by park rangers and park workers are now done by machines and surveillance equipment. The parks aren't going to pay their small base of employees more for doing less.

In contrast to the 1950's there is only one hard sciences related field that pays well now, that is physics. Both Biologists and Chemist salaries have suffered. Also in the 1950s there were more job openings in the science field for those with Bachelors degrees, now these degrees bring you to lab tech hell.

Computer programming... probably the most hilarious on the list. Do I even need to explain why computer programmers make more money now?

I'm not quite sure what is meant by "housekeepers" and "designers", I can definitely see why housekeeping salaries have gone down? Do you know anyone that has one? More than likely these are people that work part time or as supplemental salary as the households cannot afford the workers.

I considered myself that there are likely outside factors that at least partially explain this phenomenon, but it's worth noting that Its not as if women haven't tried entering the status quo.

[Hitta]

I considered myself that there are likely outside factors that at least partially explain this phenomenon, but it's worth noting that Its not as if women haven't tried entering the status quo.

Actually have been doing much better in certain key areas in the last 10 years. One I consider to be of utmost importance is small business ownership. If you want equal stake in the status quo, this is one of the most important things. Female small business ownership is up exponentially. I don't think we have strong fundamentals though in the economy, most of the top businesses are monopolies that have been in existence for many years. We don't have free trade, we have rampant corporatism, so the majority of these small businesses are probably failing. The fact that women are more willing to start businesses though is a rather good omen. Most of the business owners are still overwhelmingly men, hopefully this will balance out over time. The reason men have more businesses though, isn't because of laws, it's because women were housewives for such a long period of time.