Equal Pay for Women

Equal pay for women is not only the right thing to do; it’s the law.  Yet we continue to hear stories of glass ceilings and inequality.  The latest comes in this USA Today article reviewing progress in the IT field.  The claim seems to be that women are underrepresented and underpaid, but as usual in these stories, a closer look shows some discrepancies in that generalization.

The article’s introduction tells of a woman who was an early adapter in terms of computer education.  Her explanation is that today there is “not that mental block or stigma that women in my generation held in what we were supposed to do."  In her opinion, women’s avoidance of the computer science major was an interest and a comfort issue, but now that’s changing.  The article continues:  “Even with advances, a gender gap still exists. An executive summary prepared for Georgetown University's Center on Education and the Workforce notes that women represent 23% of the workers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) professions. But women make up 48% of workers in all occupations across the board.”

This implies a problem of exclusion, but from another source we learn that:  “According to a new report from the Census Bureau, foreign-born Americans are earning STEM degrees in disproportionately large numbers, compared to the native-born U.S. population.”  They account for 16.5% of the population, but 33% of graduates with engineering degrees, 27% with degrees in computers, math, and statistics."  Furthermore, part of the immigration debate involves the disproportionate number of international students receiving advanced STEM degrees.  Over 60% of graduate students in computer science in American universities are not American citizens.  Do these facts imply a similar kind of exclusion, a citizenship or place-of-birth gap? – Of course not.  In fact universities and employers favor American citizens over those requiring visas.  The underrepresentation of women that is complained of is an artifact of past lack of interest in the field plus, perhaps, a problem with the overall US education system.

What about the pay issue?  The USA Today article states that:  “On average, of the 15,000 employers contacted through an online poll, the survey found that male tech workers made $95,900 compared with $87,500 for women.”  Although we don’t know how well controlled or how representative this survey was, that does sound unfair.  The next sentence clarifies as follows:  However, the compensation gender gap has narrowed, with average salaries equal for male and female tech pros with comparable levels of experience and education and parallel job titles.” [Emphasis added.]  It’s easy to understand from the prior information that if women once avoided computer degrees, they would not yet have the tenure or experience that some men do.  Hence the discrepancy.  Where other factors are equal, no problem exists, and there is no reason to search for or accuse glass ceilings or other forms of covert discrimination.

Despite research findings to the contrary, based on true comparisons using like education, experience, etc., the issue of the gender gap continues to arise, often raised by politicians and advocates, based on general data or anecdotal evidence.  People believe and repeat the claim.  But why would anyone seek out reasons to portray herself or himself as a victim?  Victimhood is not a solution.  It’s only a path to resentment, a barrier to constructive problem solving, and an opportunity for those same politicians and advocates to gain power from other’s abdication of responsibility.

The Childfree Lifestyle

Maybe you missed it.  I know I almost did until it came up in a recent conversation.  Time magazine (August 12, 2013) did a cover story about the childfree lifestyle, couples (but it really focused on women) who decided not to have children.  Are these people being selfish?  Would they rather spend the estimated $234,900 that it takes to raise a child for the first 18 years on themselves instead? 

The subject struck me as people free to make the choice that best suits them – not a big deal – but apparently, judging from the number of follow-up articles and comments, it is a big deal to some.  Writers are defending the women, insisting they are not being selfish, asking why there isn’t more emphasis on similar choices made by potential fathers, and generally expressing a wide variety of opinions pro and con, including how a childfree lifestyle is “greener.”

I thought the purpose behind the women’s liberation movement back in the Seventies was to allow women to escape the “shoulds” of the post WWII era and move in whatever direction they chose.  Instead they were thrust into a new set of “shoulds” which piled career on top of many traditional roles.  That’s not liberation.  Now, in a society that still believes, according to a silly 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll, that the quality “most important in a woman” is being a good mother, the pressure is on, and the childfree choice needs defending.  It seems liberation is out the window.

From a behavioral standpoint I must come down in favor of a free choice to be childfree.  This represents good judgment as well as strong responsibility.  If potential parents believe they don’t have the resources (time, money, patience or interest) in child rearing, it is a wise and responsible decision.  The last thing we need in America is more unwanted or emotionally neglected children.  Accordingly, if being a good mother is most important, one characteristic of a good mother should be not nagging your daughter to “make me a grandmother.”

Instead of pressuring women to have children, a better course would be to develop societal sanctions toward those women on the opposite end of the spectrum, women who decide they want to have children without the means to properly raise them, especially those who judge the man they choose to mate with as a poor prospect for marriage and fatherhood.  They decide to go it alone as a mother, using the government as a surrogate father for financial support, condemning their children to a life with a low likelihood of success.  This is far more selfish.

An Orgy of Poor Perspective

Wow, in one day this week it took me very little time to discover three news articles highlighting Americans' failure in terms of behaviors showing good perspective.

The first was the outcome of an old story.  During a youth soccer game last April, a 17-year-old player punched a referee in the head when he disagreed with a call on the field.  A week later, the man died.  The teen pleaded guilty this week to homicide and will be sent to juvenile prison for an undetermined sentence.

The next article that caught my attention began:  “Women across the U.S. are risking their lives for black market procedures to make their buttocks bigger.”  Apparently larger behinds are all the rage in hip-hop videos and considered very cool in certain social circles.  It’s not limited to women.  “Some men also seek out buttocks enhancements, but the procedures are much more popular among women.”  This is not just irresponsible behavior, like buying a $120 t-shirt to appear cool; in several instances it has resulted in death and disfigurement.

Why was I surprised by these examples of poor perspective, failing to distinguish between the important things in life and the trivial, risking one’s life for a sexier behind or taking a life over a soccer game?  I should have been tipped off that it was a bad day for perspective when the front page of my local newspaper and top of every major news website featured the headline:  “Alex Rodriguez Says 'I Am Fighting for My Life'.”  Whether Alex Rodriguez ever plays baseball again may be important to Alex, but it’s not going to change anyone else’s life significantly.  Perhaps if you are a life-long Yankees fan, and everyone in your family and all your friends are in perfect health, and you are secure in your job, and your house is not underwater, and you have no outstanding student loans, and your retirement is on track, and you have a vibrant social life, and you are at peace with your god or personal moral code, perhaps then the status of Alex night be somewhere on your list of worries.  Otherwise, for normal Americans, struggling in a down economy, at a time when the government is anticipating a possible terrorist attack, it’s a trivial situation that belongs somewhere in the sports section – not on the front page!  Are you concerned because many young boys considered A-Rod a hero?  Then it is a problem - a problem of parents not instilling the right values and perspective. 

Perspective is the ability to separate the trivial from the important.  It’s the ability to set intelligent priorities.  It’s not about sports or the size of your behind!  As long as we don’t understand this, we will not be able to move our lives or our country forward in any meaningful way.

Mozart for Your Baby?

Perhaps you saw it on the Internet, remembered from a news story that glossed over the details or heard it from neighbors, friends or co-workers who became new parents:  Research showed that playing Mozart to babies would make them smarter.  This concept, dubbed the Mozart effect, became something of a fad with parents buying up Mozart CDs and toy companies trying to capitalize on it.  In 1998 Governor Zell Miller of Georgia “asked for money to be set aside in the state budget so that every newborn baby could be sent a CD of classical music.”  Many sincerely believed that playing Mozart, or classical music in general, to children would improve their IQs.  As it turns out, that’s not exactly the case.

As this BBC article explains the research was not even conducted with babies.  The original study, published in Nature in 1993 describes how 36 students from UC-Irvine received spacial relations tests – the kind where you are shown a solid object and asked which of the unfolded 2-dimensional figures it came from.  They did this three times.  Before each test “they listened either to ten minutes of silence, ten minutes of a tape of relaxation instructions, or ten minutes of Mozart’s sonata for two pianos in D major (K448).”  Those who listened to Mozart did better, but the researchers found that this advantage lasted only about fifteen minutes.

Further research “confirmed that listening to music does lead to a temporary improvement in the ability to manipulate shapes mentally, but the benefits are short-lived and it doesn’t make us more intelligent.”  This applies to other types of music as well.  Maybe the music just stimulates the brain better or gives it a little jump-start.  In any case, these conclusions are a long way from the original parental expectations.

Even the companies that try to take advantage of these parental misconceptions by offering toys branded as Mozart and Einstein are very careful in their advertising, nowhere promising magical increases in brainpower.  One of their company blogs readily admits:  “We cannot draw a direct line from a specific infant toy to a child’s specific outcome in the future. But we do know that the number of toys cannot compare to the impacts of your bond and involvement in selecting what will endure and spark discovery everyday.”

I wouldn’t try to discourage a parent from buying these or any other toys for their children.  It’s their money and their decision.  Just remember; there is no magic answer – it’s the parent, not the toy, your "bond and involvement."  If you play with the children, pay attention to them or take them for walks to explore nature, you’re doing more for them than any toy or CD can.  In other words, you’re better than Mozart!

Note:  Those of us beyond child-rearing years face a similar challenge from companies that promote activities, books, games, puzzles, etc. that imply, but can't legally claim, to improve memory as we move into old age.  The appeal is that a laboratory-tested, magical formula might delay the onset or reduce the chances of dementia.  They play on our fear and insecurity whipped up by the media.  As always, be very, very skeptical.

Busting Conspiracy Myths

There is always a lot of ranting about big oil profits and the fact that they are spending it to buy back their own stock rather than creating jobs or going after more oil.  Whenever the price jumps, the “pain at the pump” brings out accusations of Big Oil gouging, conspiring to fix prices.  Years ago people would swear there was a connection with the Bush administration, implying that some government higher-ups were profiting personally from this plot.

Critical thinking requires research before jumping to conclusions or buying into the arguments of known opponents.  According to Forbes, Big Oil’s average profit from gasoline is about 7 cents per gallon.  This website confirms the 7 cent figure but goes on to blame the current administration:  “Gas prices are increasing because of costs of new regulations by the Obama administration and failed policies in the Middle East.”  Apparently presidents always get blamed by one side or the other.

 Overall oil companies make a lot of money, around $100 billion for Exxon, Chevron and BP together, but they do it by selling a lot of gasoline and other products.  For a good comparison use profit as a percent of revenue; for every dollar we give them, how much do they get to keep?  For Big Oil the answer is about 10 cents.  And who benefits?  “Compared with a small fraction of oil stocks (about 1.5%) owned by corporate management, the vast majority of such investments are held by average Americans, primarily via retirement accounts.”  The latest news on Big Oil, Exxon and Chevron, is that they are experiencing cost increases greater than price increases.  If they really controlled the price of oil and gasoline, how could this happen?

The airline industry is another recipient of constant complaints and overall disapproval.  They keep charging us for things that were once free:  checked luggage, in-flight snacks, extra legroom, etc.  Then they shrink the lavatories to squeeze in a few more seats.  Prices for flights change from hour to hour, and it seems like no two people are paying the same amount for a ticket on the same flight.  It’s ridiculous, frustrating and maddening!

It's no wonder we suspect them of ripping off passengers.  That’s why I was very surprised to learn that in 2012 they earned only about 37 cents in profit per enplaned passenger – including all fees.  That’s about the cost of the peanuts you don’t get for free any more.  Overall they lost money in the first decade of this century.  (See the exhibits.)  This year may be better with projected profits around $4 per passenger.

Now McDonalds, Apple and Starbucks earn about double the rate (profit/revenue) of oil companies and many times more than airlines with substantially less risky businesses, yet we don’t hear conspiracy theories and price-fixing accusations about those companies.  (For the quarter ending June 30, McDonalds earned $1.4 billion on revenues of $7.08 billion.  That’s 19.8% of sales.)  It’s curious how the concept of enemies can spread through society with so little effort to challenge or verify the data.