Question:
One of the reasons that the average man's salary is higher than the average
woman's is because men are willing to take the worst jobs, because they pay
more. Coal mining, I'm sure, can be a lucrative position, but I don't see
women lobbying for more positions in the mines. I also don't see women
volunteering for firefighting duties, or complaining that they aren't allowed
to risk their lives to save others. It bothers me when I hear about "glass
ceilings" that keep women from reaching the top but don't hear about the
"glass floors" that keep them from falling to the bottom.
Answer:
On a plane flight recently, I had a conversation with a fellow
involved in managing coal mines in New Mexico. Part of the
conversation involved its danger these day -- much improved from
former times -- and its pay -- mid-50s for underground workers.
For New Mexico, which is a very pleasant place to live with a
low cost of living, this is quite lucrative.
In fact, they do. I have read about women who have had to
fight discrimination in both the trucking industry and in their
work to become firefighters. In the cases I have read, their
struggles were successful. I think there is truth in all of
the following claims:
o some men resent it when women enter these traditionally
male areas, and
o feminists fight for women's equal opportunity to enter
these fields, but
o few women choose to do this, and most avoid these areas
for reasons that have little to do with the discrimination
they *might* face if they attempted to enter these areas, and
o the differential career choices of equally skilled women and
men is one of the reasons for their differential earnings.
My sister is a medical technician, a predominately female occupation.
As a programmer, a male dominated occupation, I was making $5,000 a
year more than her right after graduation, despite the fact she had
been in the workforce for 5 years already (and despite the fact that
she has two degrees to my one).
Why did she choose this field, when it so clearly did not pay as well?
Because (and this is a direct quote) she "likes to think [she] is helping
people directly" in her job. In other words, she *deliberately* chose
a career path that paid less, because she got more job satisfaction out
of it.
The point is, jobs that are high on the "job satisfaction" scale tend to
be lower on the pay scale, since people *want* those sorts of jobs and
thus employers can pay less. But it also so happens that women are more
likely to take those sorts of jobs. In other words, Hans' phrasing above
seems to imply that the jobs are paid less because they are female dominated.
I would contend that women tend to seek the sort of jobs that pay less,
because job satisfaction is more important to them.
Why that is, I don't know, and maybe it is a problem that needs to be
addressed. But it has been my experience with most of the women in my
life. In addition to the sister above, I have another sister who is a
nurse, and my mother is a phlebotemist, a job she took after being a
manager in a restaurant. My wife quit a higher paying job because it
didn't give her any feeling of fulfillment, to take a lower paying job
where she felt she mattered more. My sister-in-law makes money for
their family by baby-sitting children (giving her a chance to spend time
with her own), despite her education and experience in banking. All of
these cases (except for my sister the nurse, who makes a lot of money,
but works very hard for it) lower the average income for women, but
all were voluntary choices.
