Climbing the career ladder, switching jobs, and the gender wage gap in the United States

Want to earn more? That means you need to get a raise or promotion at your current job, or go out and find a new one with that same end in mind. But the extent to which worker’s wages in the United States increase from doing so is not equal, even for those with similar levels of education. Namely, women earn less than their male counterparts even at the beginning of their career, and that gap only widens over a lifetime.

But where is this gap coming from? Is it because men are more likely to get promoted or secure higher raises? Or do men go out and find new jobs at a higher rate, and secure better salaries when they do? New research by Erling Barth of Norway’s Institute for Social Research, Sari Pekkala Kerr of Wellesley College, and Claudia Olivetti of Boston College tries to unpack just where the gender wage gap is emerging. They find that there is no single answer, and that instead it depends on age, education, and marital status.

For workers with a college education, gender-based gaps in pay are primarily caused by disparities that emerge within a single workplace. In other words, men get raises and promotions at a significantly higher rate than their female colleagues do. Some of these results may be due to younger women having greater family responsibilities, which in turn may limit how much time or effort that can put into paid employment. Research demonstrates how working long hours—even without a proportional rise in actual output—can result in disproportionate economic rewards. Harvard University economist Claudia Goldin calls this “the last chapter” in attaining gender equality.

But other research shows that, even after accounting for experience and hours worked, women still face pay disparities compared to their male colleagues. Of course, pay secrecy policies common in many workplaces leave women in the dark about these salary differences, which makes it impossible for them to address any potential discrimination. A difference in men and women’s tendency to negotiate also doesn’t fully explain what’s going on. While women may be more reluctant to negotiate, that’s partly due to the fact that it doesn’t go as well for them when they do.

Barth, Kerr, and Olivetti find there is a smaller widening in pay over their lifetimes for men and women who are not college-educated—and this is not primarily driven by the disparities that emerge within a single workplace. Instead, the widening pay gap for non-college workers largely derives from differences between men and women in where they work and their “job mobility,” or how often workers change jobs, and the kinds of pay increases they get when they do.  If you leave one job to take a more-advanced position somewhere else, then that could result in higher earnings. Alternatively, if leaving one’s job is due to a layoff or for personal reasons (to raise children or take care of an elderly parent, for instance), then a worker’s earnings tend to go down.

The three researchers also find that job mobility and the subsequent differences in pay that arise are a factor in the widening gender gap for college-educated workers as well, but to a lesser extent. But, interestingly, the authors find that regardless of the education level, it is marital status, rather than gender, that is more of a defining factor in this realm. The researchers say that “these results suggest that among married couples, the household division of labor tend to limit women’s career choices with respect to job-to-job changes and this is an important determinant of the widening of the gender earnings gap, especially for college educated women who are more likely to be in occupations with steep age-earnings profiles.”

Whether the gender wage gap comes from climbing the career ladder at a single company, or the extent to which women benefit from switching jobs, one thing is clear: Both may require investments in time that go above and beyond what is necessary to do a good job. Of course, these are issues that affect all workers, but women still tend to take on a disproportionate amount of unpaid work compared to men, which means they are the ones more likely to cut back, especially given the absence of work-life policies that other countries have. Discrimination also plays a role, which speaks to the fact that there is no single answer or policy solution that can combat the many ways women are disadvantaged depending on their race, education level, marital status, age, and whether or not they have children.

Should-Read: Bill Janeway: Which Productivity Puzzle?

Should-Read: Bill Janeway: Which Productivity Puzzle?: “It is now, just 50 years from the invention of the microprocessor, that the complex of digital technologies have matured… https://medium.com/@bjaneway/which-productivity-puzzle-ffe1d574ae96

…to the point that—from the point of view of the user—ICT has begun to disappear, as electricity did for our grandparents. And the combination of Open Source software tools and cloud computing resources means that the cost of experimentation for new web services has plummeted even as the extension of broadband internet expands the addressable market by orders of magnitude. Whatever its failures of corporate culture and leadership, Uber exemplifies the friction-less provision of services that only now can be imagined, developed and deployed at the frontier of the digital economy.

But note: the transformational economic impact of technology does not come as one uniform wavefront. In 1962, Everett Rogers analyzed the “diffusion of technologies” as a process that he mapped to the logistics curve that begins slowly, accelerates to a peak rate of growth and then slows down as the market space becomes saturated…

Must- and Should-Reads: May 15, 2017


Interesting Reads:

Should-Read: Joseph Stiglitz: Illiberal Stagnation

Should-Read: Joe Stiglitz attempts to diagnose the “Weimar Russia” that currently anxiously paces the global stage:

Joseph Stiglitz: Illiberal Stagnation: “What went wrong? Who, if anyone, is to blame?… https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/illiberal-stagnation-russia-transition-by-joseph-e–stiglitz-2017-04

…Could Russia’s post-communist transition have been managed better?… I believe what we are confronting is partly the legacy of the flawed Washington Consensus that shaped Russia’s transition. This framework’s influences was reflected in the tremendous emphasis reformers placed on privatization, no matter how it was done, with speed taking precedence over everything else, including creating the institutional infrastructure needed to make a market economy work…

Joe has long believed this. But I have never been able to see it. As I understand things, the moment that Yegor Gaidar and Boris Yeltsin decided that they needed to either (1) decontrol agricultural prices or (2) send the Red Army into the countryside to collect the harvest at gunpoint, the die was cast. They were not going to do (2): Lenin and Stalin had tried that, with very bad results. And once the die was cast, they needed to do two things at once, immediately:

  • Build the institutional infrastructure to make a market economy work, as Joe says.
  • Privatize Russian industry immediately in as distributed a fashion as possible, for otherwise the nomenklatura would tunnel all of the assets out of state-owned enterprises into their own newly-created shells and Russia would win up with an economy of Oligarchs.

Doing the first without doing the second would have landed us in something very like our current situation in terms of its disappointing aspects, and would have done so sooner…

Must-Read: David Rennie: An Economist reporter dishes on Trump’s ‘priming the pump’ interview

Must-Read: The word from the Economist: Donald Trump has no clue how integrated the U.S. is with the rest of the world economy, and his court is full of sycophants who have no interest in educating them—who take their job to be to “chime in and agree with whatever the president had just said, rather than offering candid advice…”

David Rennie: An Economist reporter dishes on Trump’s ‘priming the pump’ interview: “On trade deals… [Trump] seems to think that… if the Mexicans seem to be doing well out of the deal at all… https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-05-12/economist-reporter-dishes-trumps-priming-pump-interview

…then that shows you that others are taking advantage of America. And that’s just not how trade works…. He was on the very point of withdrawing from NAFTA… but then he’d had a nice phone call from the prime minister of Canada and the president of Mexico. And they asked him “could you think again? Maybe we should renegotiate instead of withdraw completely?” And so out of respect for them, he agreed to do that…. People in the inner circle… said it was a lot more chaotic…. The reason the Canadians and the Mexicans called the president was that people in the inner circle of team Trump were very anxious…. They called [Canada and Mexico] and said, “You need to call [the president]. Right now.” People inside the White House also called the new Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue… [saying], “You need to come over here now! You need to! He’s about to withdraw from NAFTA.” So Sonny Perdue literally asked his staff to draw up a map of the bits of America that had voted for Donald Trump and the bits of America that do well from exporting grain and corn through NAFTA….

It was kind of like being in a royal palace several hundred years ago, with people coming in and out, trying to catch the ear of the king. That’s the feel at the Trump Oval Office…. There is a “Tudor court” side to it. And the role of some pretty senior figures, including cabinet secretaries, was to chime in and agree with whatever the president had just said, rather than offering candid advice.

There was a moment with Steve Mnuchin…. [Trump] said, “As soon as I started talking about China being a currency manipulator, they cut it out.”…  What was striking was… Mnuchin… chimed in and said, “Oh yeah. The day he became president, they changed their behavior!” And factually, that’s just not right. It’s quite striking to see a cabinet secretary making that point in that way….

A lot of the reporting has said that there are two completely different factions… a moderate, globalist one led by… Kushner… a dark, nationalist, angry view… Bannon… locked in a fight…. We came away with a different impression…. Donald Trump is a nationalist with a grievance. He thinks that the world has taken advantage of America for too long, and it’s time for America to be tougher and gruffer and more assertive and more selfish. If there are different voices, it’s a question of tactics…. I don’t think that a globalist, moderate wing is somehow going to win the argument and change Donald Trump. He is who he is…

Sarah Birnbaum: An Economist reporter dishes on Trump’s ‘priming the pump’ interview: “The Economist’s own analysis was even more scalding than the snarky tweets… https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-05-12/economist-reporter-dishes-trumps-priming-pump-interview

…The magazine declared:

The impulsiveness and shallowness of America’s president threaten the economy as well as the rule of law.

The article goes on to compare Trump to a modern-day Henry VIII… never a good thing:

Donald Trump rules over Washington as if he were a king and the White House his court. His displays of dominance, his need to be the centre of attention and his impetuousness have a whiff of Henry VIII about them. Fortified by his belief that his extraordinary route to power is proof of the collective mediocrity of Congress, the bureaucracy and the media, he attacks any person and any idea standing in his way…

Ouch.

Should-Read: One of the many, many ways in which Steve Mnuchin and Gary Cohn have failed to do their job

Should-Read: One of the many, many ways in which Steve Mnuchin and Gary Cohn have failed to do their job is that Donald Trump still believes that a country the US is running a bilateral trade deficit with is somehow exploiting us—rather than selling us good stuff cheap, and lending us the money to buy the good stuff cheap at ridiculously low interest rates. Step up your game, boys! Please:

Barry Eichengreen: Is Germany Unbalanced or Unhinged?: “The question… is why Germany should seek to reduce its current-account surplus… https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/german-external-surplus-requires-public-investment-by-barry-eichengreen-2017-05

…One answer is to get out of Trump’s sights. A better answer… is that doing so would be good for a world economy in which investment is in short supply, as evidenced by record-low interest rates. It would be good for Southern Europe, which needs to export more, but can only do so if someone else, like the largest Northern European economy, imports more. Most of all, more investment in infrastructure, health, and education would be good for Germany itself. Well-targeted public investment can raise productivity and boost living standards, ameliorate concerns about inequality… address Germany’s economic weaknesses… there are exactly zero German universities in the top 50 globally. More public funds would make a difference…

Must- and Should-Reads: May 14, 2017


Interesting Reads:

Should-Read: Dani Rodrik: Can Macron Pull it Off?

Should-Read: Dani Rodrik: Can Macron Pull it Off?: “Le Pen received more than a third of the second-round vote… And turnout was apparently sharply… indicating a large number of disaffected voters… https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/macron-germany-eurozone-fiscal-union-by-dani-rodrik-2017-05

…Macron was helped in this age of anti-establishment politics by the fact that he stood outside traditional political parties. As president, however, that same fact is a singular disadvantage…. Macron’s economic ideas resist easy characterization…. Many of Macron’s economic plans do indeed have a neoliberal flavor…. lower the corporate tax rate from 33.5% to 25%, cut 120,000 civil service jobs, keep the government deficit below the EU limit of 3% of GDP, and increase labor-market flexibility (a euphemism for making it easier for firms to fire workers). But he has promised to maintain pension benefits, and his preferred social model appears to be Nordic-style flexicurity–a combination of high levels of economic security with market-based incentives.

None of these steps will do much… creating jobs…. Since the eurozone crisis, French unemployment has remained high, at 10%–and close to 25% for people under 25 years old…. Macron… has proposed a five-year, €50 billion ($54.4 billion) stimulus plan, which would include investments in infrastructure and green technologies, along with expanded training for the unemployed. But, given that this is barely more than 2% of France’s annual GDP, the stimulus plan on its own may not do too much to lift overall employment. Macron’s more ambitious idea is to take a big leap toward a eurozone fiscal union, with a common treasury and a single finance minister….

Macron’s unabashedly Europeanist policies are not just a matter of politics or principle. They are also critical to the success of his economic program. Without either greater fiscal flexibility or transfers from the rest of the eurozone, France is unlikely to get out of its employment funk soon. The success of Macron’s presidency thus depends to a large extent on European cooperation. And that brings us to Germany….

Having portrayed the eurozone crisis not as a problem of interdependence, but as a morality tale–thrifty, hard-working Germans pitted against profligate, duplicitous debtors–German politicians will not have an easy time bringing their voters along on any common fiscal project. Anticipating the German reaction, Macron has countered it: “You cannot say I am for a strong Europe and globalization, but over my dead body for a transfer union.” That, he believes, is a recipe for disintegration and reactionary politics: “Without transfers, you will not allow the periphery to converge and will create political divergence towards extremists.”… Macron is almost certainly right…

Weekend reading: the #WorkingPaperTuesday edition

This is a weekly post we publish on Fridays with links to articles that touch on economic inequality and growth. The first section is a round-up of what Equitable Growth published this week and the second is the work we’re highlighting from elsewhere. We won’t be the first to share these articles, but we hope by taking a look back at the whole week, we can put them in context.

Equitable Growth round-up

Building off a piece from last week, Nick Bunker takes a second look at a new research on income inequality in the United States, which explores some reasons for why one-year income inequality has increased while lifetime income inequality has not changed too much.

Equitable Growth released two new working papers, one of which takes a look at the consequences that bad credit reports have on credit and the labor market, while the other discusses some of the contradictions present in a well-known critique of Keynesian economics.

Researchers and policymakers generally agree that the benefits of early childhood education make it a worthwhile investment in the United States. But there is much less agreement on how to build high-quality programs and sustain the cognitive gains made in preschool. Kavya Vaghul explains that another important consideration that is often missing from the conversation is preschool classroom diversity.

A new issue brief dives into the importance of raising the minimum wage to spur far-reaching economic growth in the United States, surveying the work of several academics in Equitable Growth’s network of scholars. Together, the work helps elucidate whether and how the minimum wage affects family incomes and job opportunities and offers ideas for how to structure future minimum wage policies.

“After Piketty: The Agenda for Economics and Inequality,” a new book published by Harvard University Press, was released this week, featuring several essays reflecting on what gaps still remain to be researched following economist Thomas Piketty’s best-seller “Capital in the Twenty-First Century.” See an excerpt from one of the essays by Suresh Naidu here.

What were the economic ramifications of opening up the United States to more trade with China in 2000? According to new research, one consequence may have been fuel added to the housing bubble as increased competition from Chinese imports weakened the labor market. Nick Bunker further explores the connection.

Links from around the web

Through a series of interviews, Matthew Desmond tackles the relationship between homeownership and inequality in the United States, highlighting how the benefits of home mortgage interest and other real estate tax deductions overwhelmingly accrue to the upper-middle class and the wealthy. [new york times]

Speaking of housing, it may be surprising that the quality of subsidized or assisted housing conditions are pretty equal for children of different races. The problem, however, as Gene Demby points out, is that the location of subsidized housing significantly varies for black and white children, which ultimately influences their life outcomes. [npr]

The “robot apocalypse,” the idea that technologies and automation could increasingly push out workers, is not in fact coming, argues Greg Ip. It may actually be that many low-productivity sectors need to start adopting them to improve the productivity and living standards of workers. [the wall street journal]

Leila Morsy highlights new research on the connection between parents’ incarceration and their child’s cognitive and behavior outcomes, suggesting that mass incarceration may be intrinsically linked to education policy. [the american prospect]

With Mother’s Day around the corner, Valerie Wilson analyzes the Current Population Survey to show the unique role that African American mothers play in the economic well-being of their families. Black moms work more hours and are much more likely to work. [epi]

Friday figure

Featured in “The importance of raising the minimum wage to boost broad-based U.S. economic growth” and originally from “How raising the minimum wage ripples through the workforce

Should-Read: Sarah Kliff: Donald Trump has no idea what health insurance costs

Should-Read: Sarah Kliff: Donald Trump has no idea what health insurance costs: “The Economist asked the president about the fact that many Americans are expected to lose coverage… https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/11/15624328/trump-health-insurance-costs

…This was Trump’s response:

The state governments are in much better position to, you know, help people. In terms of, you know, just the size, the mere size of it. But we’re putting in $8bn and you’re going to have absolute coverage. You’re going to have absolute guaranteed coverage…

Trump makes a promise of “guaranteed coverage.” But the Republican bill doesn’t deliver on that. When the Congressional Budget Office analyzed the last version of the American Health Care Act, it estimated that 24 million fewer Americans would have coverage…. The more recent iteration of the bill adds an additional $8 billion to fund high-risk pools… not nearly enough….

There’s also this other line in the response that caught my eye, where Trump discusses how he thinks health insurance ought to work.

Insurance is, you’re 20-years-old, you just graduated from college, and you start paying $15 a month for the rest of your life and you really need it, you’re still paying the same amount and that’s really insurance…

The fact that Trump settles on $15 as the appropriate amount to pay for health insurance betrays a lack of familiarity with the actual cost of coverage. You do not have to be a health policy expert to get this—just someone who has ever purchased a health plan.

Most voters I talk to don’t have this expectation…. They know, from their experience, that health coverage is not as cheap as $15, and have more realistic assumptions than the one Trump makes….

There is a lengthy exchange in the Economist interview over the future of Obamacare’s cost-sharing reduction subsidies…. This is a huge deal for insurance companies… the thing that keeps them up at night, deciding whether or not to sell Obamacare coverage in 2018. Trump’s answers here certainly won’t give the industry a better night’s sleep. Here is the exchange:

TRUMP: We’re subsidizing it and we don’t have to subsidize it. You know if I ever stop wanting to pay the subsidies, which I will.

ECONOMIST: You’d pull the plug on that? If this bill doesn’t go through you’d stop those subsidies?

TRUMP: No, this bill only gives them one month. They don’t realize that, that’s another thing. Good point. This bill gives them one month, it gave, you know the subsidy…

ECONOMIST: The continuation of the subsidy?

TRUMP: The subsidy to the insurance companies, yes. Anytime I want because actually.

ECONOMIST: But my question is if the bill doesn’t pass.

TRUMP: In actuality Congress has to approve it. Congress…

ECONOMIST: If the bill doesn’t pass would you cut the subsidies?

TRUMP: If the bill doesn’t pass, I’d be in a different position. Because, if the bill didn’t pass the Republicans would have let me down. And then I’d have to decide what I want to do because I want people to have health care.

Within the span of a few sentences, Trump seems to hint that he is ready to stop paying the subsidies—but that his course of action may be tempered by what Congress does on the Obamacare repeal strategy…. White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus made reassuring calls to legislators that reportedly put Democratic leadership at ease. Trump, however, wants to make it clear that these payments are not a done deal[:]… he could end the subsidies “anytime I want.”… Trump is destabilizing the Obamacare marketplaces and raising the possibility of collapse. Whether he understands that is an open question…

No, Sarah, whether Trump understands it is not an open question.

Trump does not understand it.

Trump does not understand it any more than he understands that he did not invent the phrase “priming the pump”, that his plans do not do what people mean when they say “prime the pump”, nor that steam-driven catapults are not a realistic design choice to launch modern fighter jets off of Ford-class aircraft carries.