Skip to comments.The female drivers of income inequality
Posted on 05/27/2014 4:41:08 AM PDT by rickmichaels
Reducing income inequality is an imperative in our society. The Pope and President Obama have both called it the defining issue of our times. The 1% protesters took the issue to the streets, economist Thomas Picketty to the elites. How to deal with this shame?
Fortunately, thanks to recent research from one of the worlds premier research organizations, the drivers of income inequality have now been unmasked. Income inequality is fueled by personal desires, finds the study, Marry Your Like: Assortative Mating and Income Inequality, which examined demographic data from 1960 to 2005. Published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, the study found that income inequality has a lot to do with sex and education.
Since 1960, women have become much better educated, much better paid, and much freer to choose the mate of their dreams. The payoff in getting educated for everyone male or female has also increased. All this has been disastrous for those who deplore the growing income inequality between rich and poor in society.
The problem culminates in the choices made in marriage. In the pre-feminist-liberation days, girls grew up to be nurses and boys to be doctors. The nurse of the 1960s might then aspire to marry up by nabbing a doctor. Or girls might grow up to be legal secretaries and boys lawyers, with the secretary marrying up by landing the lawyer. The general effect of the society of the 1960s, when women werent as well educated and couples more often brought different incomes into a marriage, was an averaging or homogenization of household incomes. This homogenization tempered both extreme wealth and poverty.
For example, if a woman without a high school education married a man with a college degree, their household income would be 24% higher than the median for society. Even if she married a man who also didnt have a high school education, their household income wouldnt be far off the median just 23% lower. A woman with a graduate degree who married a man with a graduate degree would be in a household whose income would be less than two-and-a half times that of an uneducated couple not a huge gap between rich and poor.
By 2005, marriage dynamics had changed. The doctors and lawyers in society were as likely to be women as men, and those women now tended to marry other doctors and lawyers and others in the same socio-economic class. The nurses and legal secretaries had less opportunity to marry up, making them more likely to marry someone in their own socio-economic status. The general effect of women reaching parity with men has been stratification by economic and educational status.
When men and women with post-graduate degrees marry, they now pull in more than twice the median income, or almost three times the extra amount that their counterparts in 1960 earned. At the other end of the education scale, men and women without a high school education who marry earn 59% less than the median income today, much less than occurred in 1960. Put another way, the best educated households now have incomes more than five times that of the least educated groups, a more than doubling in the gap since the 1960s.
That higher education pays more than ever can also be seen by comparing couples who both had high school educations. In 1960, the couple earned a bit more than the median, in 2005 fully one-sixth less. When an uneducated woman marries a college-educated man today their household income is 15% below the median, compared to 24% above in 1960.
The trend to more education, and especially to more education for women, has promoted the rich-poor gap so many find unconscionable. What to do about this unintended consequence of female emancipation? One route to greater income equality would be to restrict education for women and arrange marriages for them.
An alternative would be to resign ourselves to our fate. Accept the fact that women are now educated, that they now earn a lot more, that they are now able to marry their equals, and that their education and their incomes make society as a whole richer. Income inequality the Pope, Obama and the social justice grievance industry notwithstanding may not be such a bad bargain for society.
Yes, note that Leftists didain the notion of being driven by the desire to make more money, but then they turn right around and complain that the people who have a drive to make more money, somehow have more money.
Happiness is not money, but a lot of happiness is the ability to be content with what you’ve got. Leftists set themselves up for unhappiness, because they desire to have a lot, but disdain the requirements of attaining it.
Interesting, but common sense, of course liberals will blame sexism, racism, homophobia, etc...
Well, that's the issue, isn't it?
To resolve the question, you have to define the good compared to"richer", in a way that's not a tautology, and that, above all, is something we are not willing to do.
Look at the marriage stats. Fewer women in all groups are getting married. Many educated women will only have one income in their lifetime. They’d better put away all the money they can if they expect to retire.
Exactly, very well stated.
Many of them desire to have what they did not earn and what is not rightfully theirs.
While the whole issue of “income inequality” is a liberal lie, the actual fact is that Obama has created more actual income inequality by his policies, laws, decisions and exec orders than any president in history.
It’s at the core of all liberalism/progressivism/Marxism (they are the same, differing only in degree) to say one thing while practicing and doing the exact opposite.
For women with a college degree, illegitimacy is less than 10%. For women who don’t finish high school, it is around 70-80% illegitimate. Even if they are living with the boyfriend at the time of birth, the majority are broken up within five years. Contrast this to two thirds of first marriages lasting a life-time.
The lack of marriage in the lower class, with the lack of economics of scale of both adults living together for decades, adds to the poverty. And the poverty is exacerbated when he divides his limited resources between multiple children / women.
Ledbetter ryhmes with bedwetter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.