Comments on: Equal Pay for Equal Risk

By: frankania

frankania — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 01:09:24 +0000

Remember back in the 70’s, Carter’s plan to equalize wages. He pointed out that a truckdriver made more than a nurse! Well, the answer is easy, if the nurse doesn’t like her salary, she should DRIVE A TRUCK!

By: Joe Magner

Joe Magner — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:27:25 +0000

Ah,

So that makes all the sense in the world out of mexican labor and immagration. Why they flock to the United States. Why they take jobs in the fields where pestisides kill and construction where there is danger of falling. Why they dont demand Health Benifits…..Why they are paid SO MUCH and why they are displacing American Workers…..American Works would rather settle for bad wages and the mexicans – who like risk and bring their families for risk – want to be paid all those big bucks.

If only Americans would just no be so Risk Adverse they could be making millions like the mexicans!!!!!!

Thank you for so thoughtful a piece.

By: DKH

DKH — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:18:46 +0000

usreporter:

The pink line uses the scale on the right side of the graph, the maximum of which doesn’t even meet the minimum of the left-side scale. The left-side scale is where the blue line should be reckoned.

By: usreporter

usreporter — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:14:13 +0000

People do get paid differently according to the amount of risk they take. Sales people who can be shoved out the door tomorrow if they do not make target get paid a disproportionate amount compared with the people making the product they sell, even though those people are often more qualified. I’m thinking specifically about journalism but the same could be applied to other industries.

Also, I don’t really understand the chart. On the employment chart the pink line is consistently higher than the blue one. It seems to be saying that generally there are more women in employment than men. Given that in most cases it is the women that stay home temporarily when children are born, I find it hard to believe that there are more women in the workforce than men. I would be grateful if someone could explain this to me.

By: DWPittelli

DWPittelli — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 10:53:48 +0000

Don’t forget another form of risk differential: Men have an occupational death rate 9 times higher than that of women.

By: GU

GU — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 02:23:44 +0000

Warren Farrell, former member of the Board of Directors of NOW, wrote a book called “Why Men Earn More.” His basic thesis is that they work crappier, riskier jobs. His point overlaps substantially with Coyote’s, but not exactly. The book is worth a read if you’re interested in the topic.

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/0814472109

By: Methinks

Methinks — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 01:00:15 +0000

I too can offer only anecdotal evidence. I’m in a high stress, male dominated industry where I basically eat what I kill. Consequently, my compensation was much higher than average. I’ve never ever been underpaid – for long. When I felt that I was, I started my own company. Of course, I chose not to have children. Time marches on and when women return from maternity leave they are inevitably behind, distracted and worth less to their employer. On the other hand, they have children. That’s a form of compensation that everyone seems to ignore.

By: morganovich

morganovich — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:22:56 +0000

i don’t have any hard facts to back this up with, but anecdotally have heard from 3 different HR folks with whom i have spoken and the risk issue has a corporate component as well. women in their mid/late 20’s to mid 30’s are in peak child bearing years. they tend to take time off to have and raise children. whether or not it’s fair, biology is biology.

as a company, investing in training and promoting them carries a risk. they may leave either temporarily or permanently. this makes “investing” in them riskier. compensation (per year of experience) between men and women in their late 30’s tends to converge as this issue goes away.

By: Link

Link — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:18:47 +0000

Males typically pay more for life insurance, because of higher mortality. Where’s the outrage.

I had never heard of a correlation between wages and unemployment risk, but it’s illuminating.

By: Brad Warbiany

Brad Warbiany — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:44:21 +0000

Interesting thought — I’d love to hear if you actually do further study on it.

One question that comes up regarding this is how tightly coupled the numbers usually are. The graphs are Jan ‘06 to Feb ‘09, and I wonder whether Jan ‘06 (due to high employment in construction and other male-dominated fields) actually showed an artificially low unemployment rate for males…

I.e. what I’m getting at is whether there is a naturally higher unemployment rate amongst men, and if that might be evidence of men working in jobs with higher employment risk.

Either way, if you have more info over time, I’ll be reading.