The Great (Male) Stagnation. The growing disconnect between GDP per capita and male income.

Marginal Revolution ^ | 06/08/2011 | Alex Tabarrok

[SeekAndFind]

You have probably seen something like the following graph which shows real GDP per capita and median male income since 1947. Typically, the graph is shown with family or household income but to avoid family-size effects I use male income. It’s evident that real gdp per capita and median male income became disconnected in the early 1970s. Why? Explanations include rising inequality (mean male income does track real gdp per capita somewhat more closely), Tyler speculates that the nature of technological advances has changed, other people have speculated about rising corporate profits. Definitive answers are hard to come by.

Here is another set of data that most people have not incorporated into their analysis:

Median female income tracks real GDP per capita much more closely than does median male income. It’s unclear which, if any, of the above explanations are consistent with this finding. Increasing inequality, for example, predicts an increasing divergence in real GDP per capita and female median income but we don’t see this in the graph (there is a slight increase in the absolute difference but the ratios don’t increase). Similarly, we would expect changes in technology and corporate profits to affect both male and female median income equally but in fact the trends are very different.

One can, of course, do the Ptolemaic move and add an epicycle for differences in male and female inequality and so forth. Not necessarily wrong but not that satisfying either.

The big difference between female and males as far as jobs, of course, has been labor force participation rates, increasing strongly for the former and decreasing somewhat for the latter. Most of the female change, however, was over by the mid to late 1980s, and the (structural) male change has been gradual. Other differences are that female education levels have increased dramatically and male levels have been relatively flat. Females are also more predominant in services and males in manufacturing: plumbers, car mechanics, carpenters, construction workers, electricians, and firefighters, for example are still 95%+ male. Putting these together points to a skills and sectoral story, probably amplified by follow-on changes in labor force participation rates.

Thinking about the story this way also reminds us that the median male or female is not a person but a place in a distribution. The median male in 1970 can get rich by 1990 even though median male income is flat.

Again, no definitive answers, but the raw patterns are striking.

[rarestia]

Most women are waiting longer to have children. Many men are living with their parents well into their 30s. The ratio of women to men in post-secondary education is striking. Women complain that men are less like men and more like boys anymore.

The feminist revolution of the 60s destroyed the idea of males as men, essentially gutting the idea of man as breadwinner, figurehead, and master of the house. Meanwhile, women continue to harp that men aren’t pulling their weight in relationships. Is it any wonder why?

[MSF BU]

This also does not take into account the impact of the black economy. Most under-the-table work is done by males (construction, repairs, etc.) and that is not reflected in the graph. My own personal experience over the last month, paying out over 4K to various vendors reminded me of this possibility.

[MSF BU]

This also does not take into account the impact of the black economy. Most under-the-table work is done by males (construction, repairs, etc.) and that is not reflected in the graph. My own personal experience over the last month, paying out over 4K to various vendors reminded me of this possibility.

[rarestia]

Completely agree, sir. My brother is an under-the-table laborer, and while he still lives at home with our mother, he’s got a little money coming in.

The problem as I see it, esp. as presented in this article, is that the late 60s and early 70s ushered in the feminist revolution that has, of late, turned the idea of the modern family on its ear. Women aren’t marrying at 18, popping out kids and living happily ever after anymore. They’re establishing themselves in a career, waiting until their 30s, having some kids, and going back to work. Minor slights or laziness on the part of the man is considered unacceptable, divorce comes around, and women are seemingly more comfortable being single-moms, damn the consequences.

[G Larry]

Fortune 500 companies have focused on promoting women, over more qualified men for some time now.
Especially when the gov’t is their primary customer.

[9YearLurker]

Women’s income didn’t really start rising until the late 60’s, when you started to see them as doctors and lawyers, not just nurses and secretaries, and even teacher salaries began to rise. Also, blatant salary discrimination is now not only illegal, but socially unacceptable.

[PapaBear3625]

Also, blatant salary discrimination is now not only illegal, but socially unacceptable.

"Salary discrimination" was an overblown issue.

Where women and men had the same value as employees, they were paid the same. A company which could get the same value from a woman employee for 70% of the salary of men could drive all competitors out of business by hiring only women, so the feminist argument about women making 70% of men's salaries is BS. What really happens is that, where men were paid a premium, it was because they were more willing to work overtime as needed, or to get sent off on business trips on short notice.

[wolfman23601]

Yep, and most of the women who are still having children in their 20s are poor. We had our first 2 years ago (i was 30 and my wife was 27) and we are still the only couple in our group of middle/upper-middle class friends with kids other than one other couple and the woman is 35 and just had her first. We have a system that makes it nearly impossible for the middle classes to procreate at a sustainable rate.

In most areas, two middle-class incomes are needed to live in a single family home in a safe neighborhood and pay the bills. Nobody wants to raise a child in an urban apartment, even if it is on a safe block. Cost of daycare is like a second mortgage. We can afford it for our one child, but we have to wait until he is either approaching kindergarten or I am making about $80,000 per year so my wife can stay home before we have our second.

[9YearLurker]

Not true! It used to be very common to pay men more than women for the same work (e.g., if paid on an hourly basis). Male heads of families were paid more, but even single men were as well. I myself worked at two companies where that was a defended policy.

As to salary discrimination now, it on the main is gone. There are some industries that pay men more and hire and promote men more readily, but they are the exception rather than the norm.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

“Women’s income didn’t really start rising until the late 60’s, when you started to see them as doctors and lawyers, not just nurses and secretaries, and even teacher salaries began to rise. Also, blatant salary discrimination is now not only illegal, but socially unacceptable.”

I'm for equality, but it appears to me that the pendulum has shifted too far in the anti-male direction. Businesses, universities, and essentially any employer that is large enough to be scrutinized publicly clearly are motivated to hire more women.

If a man and a woman are equally qualified, the woman will definitely have the edge. I don't know about the issue of less qualified women getting an edge, but I think if they are equally qualified then the likelihood of either getting hired should be equal. To do otherwise is gender discrimination. Doesn't matter what direction this discrimination goes in. It's still discrimination.

[9YearLurker]

I am not for any form of government-enforced quotas. You are correct, there are areas where women are favored over men, all things being equal, and that’s not right either.

[freeandfreezing]

I suspect one factor is that a larger percentage of women are involved in professions where there is less competition - such as teaching, health care, and government. By contrast a large percentage of men work in areas like manufacturing or construction where there are keen efforts to reduce the cost of employees. When was the last time you saw a public school outsource its teaching to India, or hire recent immigrants to teach since they would work for less than the previous employees?

[9YearLurker]

The lack of competition in teaching and government would be due to unions and civil service protections.

[riverdawg]

“The ratio of women to men in post-secondary education is striking.”

Yes, it's almost 60-40 female-to-male in most colleges and universities - complete reversal from 40 years ago. And new graduates in certain well-paying professions like pharmacy and vet medicine are about 80% female. The men who should be in their peak earning years (40-50) are from what was called the “slacker” generation.

[rarestia]

My fiancee is 6 years my senior, approaching that “danger zone” time in her life where having babies could mean problems, but we’re proceeding with plans to get married and start procreating quickly thereafter. We both make a good living, and with me being debt-free, I hope that after we’re married she can start a home business and be home with the kids.

No one I know in my age group (early 30s) is married or has kids excepting those I work with. My close group of friends is almost exclusively single, and it doesn’t seem to be getting any better whereas the youngins (18-25) seem to be getting pregnant and doing everything backwards.

I chalk it up to generation gap. I’m a gen-Xer, and all these gen-Yer kids seem to have forgotten traditional values in lieu of the liberal groupthink “who needs marriage” mentality. Sad...

[rarestia]

I think it’s all cyclical, but women are obviously getting the better end of the deal all around.

I remember looking for scholarships when I was a freshman in college. Family money was nonexistent, so I would spend several hours a week in the financial aid offices going through the scholarship catalogs. As a white male, I was quite flummoxed by the number of scholarships for blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and women whereas white male scholarships were literally nonexistent. I never found a white male scholarship (that would be racist), but I managed to get a few under “child from single-parent home” and a few other oddball categories.

If you’re an overweight Asian-Islander woman with a black parent, you could go through 8 years of school, internships, and medical school without paying a dime.

[PapaBear3625]

We all have our experiences. Back in the early 90's I was told that the reason I was not going to be promoted was that the company had too many white male managers, and that they would only be promoting women until it was closer to 50-50. I left a couple months later to be a consultant (consultants are not counted in the demographics, so it's OK to be a white male).

In the 80's I was working as a consultant (through an agency) to a Fortune 50 corporation. I asked the executive I reported to about a direct assignment. He told me I needed to put my consulting company in my wife's name (so it would be a woman/minority-owned company) in order to be considered.

[riverdawg]

“I think it’s all cyclical, but women are obviously getting the better end of the deal all around.”

In the rush to ensure male-female equality of opportunity, we have somehow overshot the target and set up an environment (at home, at school, and maybe in the workplace) where now it is males who are underachieving.

[9YearLurker]

Both your experiences are, in my eyes, obviously wrong—and all too common. I am talking about an earlier era, up into the 70’s, however, when the circumstances were commonly the opposite.