How Large is the So-Called Gender Gap?

Last time I introduced the idea of a psycho fact, information that has been so frequently and commonly passed along that it is accepted as true without the need for further investigation or proof.  It falls into the category of “everyone knows that” because everyone says it or hears it so often.  The textbook example is the idea that we use only a small fraction of our brains and have so much untapped potential.  (This notion is a staple among the self-help gurus and motivational speaker crowd.)

Another bit of information that has been repeated so many times that it has become accepted as fact is that a woman is paid only 77 cents for every dollar a man earns, usually implying that this is true for exactly the same job even when age, education, experience, and all other factors are considered.  Related to this is the idea that men outnumber women in the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) fields due both to societal pressures portraying these fields as unfeminine and to a belief by some that women have less aptitude in these areas.

The most recent challenge to the first idea appeared in Forbes as an in-depth examination of the employment and salary data from the UK, which shows, when comparing all male workers to all female workers, a similar gap to that found in the US; and it explains why the UK Statistics Authority characterizes this conclusion as “highly misleading.”  They emphasize the need for accurate statistics as a guide to government policy.  To do that “we need to know how much of that [gap] is because of choices that people make over working hours, what job they do, the flexibility they might prefer over pay and so on, and then see what’s left which might be the result of direct discrimination.”  Unless such a careful comparison is made, the numbers are worthless in guiding policy decisions.

Digging deeper into the data, the problems are clarified a bit.  “Given the society we do have, rather than the one that some of us might like, it’s really no surprise at all that more women work part time than men, what with juggling child care duties. And it’s also no surprise at all that part timers make less per hour than full timers.”  Some data actually contradicts the premise showing that women working part time actually make 3.4 % more than men do, but this is offset by the fact that 4 times as many women opt for part time work.  This choice factor is only one component of a highly complex calculation and many other factors must be considered in order to make a fair comparison.  The simplistic comparison of all men to all women results in the popular, but “highly misleading,” 77-cents-due-primarily-to-discrimination conclusion that many in the US immediately jump to.

On the second point, a recent report from the PBS News Hour challenges the notion that STEM fields are unattractive to women and that they are therefore so greatly outnumbered by men.  “On closer inspection, it turns out that these ‘truths’ are nothing more than assumptions, and that these assumptions are inconsistent with the facts.”  They go on to tell about, and show graphically, some STEM fields and academic majors where women actually outnumber men.  Despite these facts, well-intentioned institutions continue to set up educational opportunities and other strategies to try to deprogram young girls from hating math.  It’s a solution to a non-problem, often funded by taxpayer dollars or charitable donations that could be better directed.

What is the purpose of the constant repetition of these two related psycho facts?  They likely remain popular because it places women, in general, in a victim status giving some the opportunity to vent and to take out their frustrations when things don’t seem to be going their way.  It is not affirming, not inspiring, not supportive, but it is not intended to be.  Rather, the purpose seems to be to give power to the rescuers who promise results through strikes, protests, or legislative action; rescuers whose main interest is not justice or equality, but retention and growth of their own political popularity and power, even if it is based on a poorly developed and “highly misleading” statistic.

That is not to say there is no discrimination at all, but those who rely on these sloppy generalizations choose to wallow in victimhood and be taken advantage of by manipulative public figures rather than taking responsibility for their own individual situations.

Social Media vs. Reality

Given the choice to believe information passed around by friends, family and Facebook or the often-contradictory information passed around by doctors and experts based on scientific research, why do so many people go with the former?  Some of this effect may be blamed on the prevalence of what used to be called old wives’ tales and later urban legend, but are now sometimes referred to as a "psycho fact" – defined as a belief in the truth of an assertion based only on constant repetition.  A textbook example of a psycho fact is the myth that we use only 10% of our brain, an assumption easily disproved by MRI or other imaging technology as well as some common sense reasoning.

Now the formula for Diet Pepsi is being changed, not for any scientific or health-related reasons, but because of the public belief that aspartame currently used as a sweetener is unhealthy.  The company attributes a 5% reduction in sales to this widespread misinformation, so they have no choice but to succumb to public opinion and loudly advertise that they are changing.

In most articles, the press reports this fairly and emphasizes the fact that aspartame is, according to the FDA, “one of the most exhaustively studied substances in the human food supply, with more than 100 studies supporting its safety."  As reported in the Guardian from the UK, “the decision is a canny marketing move to allay the fears of US consumers, rather than one based on science; aspartame will still be used in Diet Pepsi for the rest of the world.”  As with many other substances, when taken in high enough doses, the individual ingredients can be dangerous; but as I have pointed out several times before, even water can be fatal if too much is consumed.

This LA Times report explains how wrong these rumors of danger are and how often they have been debunked.  For example, a 1996 paper purported to link exposure to it to a rise in brain tumors, but the increase in tumors was shown to began in 1973, “eight years before the introduction of aspartame, and mostly to affect people 70 and older -- not a major market for diet drinks. A team from the National Cancer Institute in 2006 found ‘no support’ for the hypothesis that the chemical posed a risk to humans.”  Nevertheless, the fear mongers persist, often quoting each other’s warnings and supposed research as proof of their point.

These aspartame rumors are not an isolated example.  It is just one small example in a growing list of fears driven by a small group of presumably well intentioned, but ignorant people who use fear tactics to promote their agendas.  Consider the bad reputation and continued assault on other safe products and practices:  fears spread about the use of Deet in mosquito repellant; claims by anti-vaccines and anti-fluoridation of drinking water movements; irrational resistance to irradiation as a food purification method, bold lettering declaring problems with milk from rBGH-treated cows, misperceptions about the health effects to animals and children of radiation from electrical powerlines and far too many others to mention.

We are left with a choice.  We can spend our resources worrying about these fabricated dangers in the environment and the food supply, participating in protests, spreading unfounded rumors on social media, and spending money on more expensive products that have been forced to meet every artificial restriction and preference of a non-scientific public; or we can use some critical thinking to look for the real science behind these supposed fears.  Don’t we have enough problems without letting these scaremongers, who may be profiting from the rumors they spread, invent more for us?  And just as the housing boom/bust was not caused by the prudent homebuyer but affected everyone regardless of financial responsibility, this surge in anti-science misinformation on social media, on television and in casual conversation perpetuated by an increasingly gullible public will have long-lasting and unnecessarily detrimental effects on our economy and our lives.

The Expectations Trap

Sometimes we get caught up in the emotion. 

It may be lack of perspective where we don’t appreciate what we have, and don’t appreciate that most Americans are far better off than those in other parts of the world and far better off than our grandparents were only 50 years ago.  We get excited about new opportunities, adventures or acquisitions and forget about gratitude.  Instant gratification trumps planning for the future.  Sometimes expectations are so high that we set ourselves up for disappointments. 

It may be lack of critical thinking.  Looking at the facts is never as much fun as living in a pretend world or persuading ourselves that the details don’t really matter.  Again we develop unrealistic expectations and are let down by reality, sometimes seriously.

Two recent stories serve as interesting examples.

A table on this website shows the average wedding cost in the United States for 2014 is up to $31,213 (excluding honeymoon).  Information comes from “The Knot 2014 Real Weddings Study” of 16,000 couples.  Now this survey is not going to include couples that just stop by a Justice of the Peace or have a private wedding.  It most likely includes formal weddings, those involving wedding planners and such. Also an average can be skewed by a few very expensive Hollywood affairs, but still! – That number represents the cost of a respectable middle class house in 1970.

It would not be out of line to mention that according to information from The Economist, Americans lead the industrialized world in both frequency of divorce and brevity of marriages.  Divorced couples stay together only about eight years before going separate ways.

This is clearly an expectations problem.  Little girls grow up dreaming about their wedding and being the star of the show.  (If the smallest thing goes wrong the whole affair may be declared a disaster – all that money down the drain!)  We know what little boys grow up thinking about, which motivates them to keep the peace and go along with any plans.  The point is:  it’s the marriage that counts, not the wedding.  It’s a shame that in America today it’s likely that your tattoo will last longer than your average marriage.  Let’s just hope the people spending $31,000 on a wedding are not the same ones owing an average of $29,000 on student loans. 

The second example comes from this USA Today report on low morale in the military.  “More than half of some 770,000 soldiers are pessimistic about their future in the military and nearly as many are unhappy in their jobs, despite a six-year, $287 million campaign to make troops more optimistic and resilient.”  This clearly says something about military leadership, but I was astonished to read a summary of comments from two sources that “the results are not surprising” given the realities of “[f]ourteen years of war and recent decisions to downsize.”  Wait a minute; if war is a reason for low morale, it’s pretty clear these soldiers joined with unrealistic expectations.  That’s what an army does: train for war or go to war.  People shoot at you and you shoot back.

I recently heard of a young man who couldn’t find a job and decided to join the army.  While he was in basic training, both he and his wife were surprised and angry that he couldn’t take time off to attend his daughter’s first communion.  They apparently didn’t understand that members of the military often spend extended periods of time away from their families and often do not get to choose when or for how long that occurs.  They were too busy concentrating on the prospect of getting a first assignment in Hawaii.  Imagine their surprise if he goes to war instead!  With these expectations – partly the fault of overzealous recruiters only interested in making the “numbers” and partly the fault of the enlistee failing to do enough research – it is not a mystery that morale is low.

Sometimes we get caught up in the emotion and forget that realistic and appropriate expectations are so important to a happy life.

Born Yesterday?

I was not born yesterday and I’m sure you weren’t either, yet some advertisers treat us as if we were.

Having a landline telephone we get a call or two a day that we screen using caller ID.  If we don’t recognize the number, we don’t answer.  Later we check the voicemail and find no messages.  I have given up on the idea of answering and asking to be removed from the list and reporting them to the government’s do-not-call website because it seems the sanctions, if there are any at all, are insufficient to discourage the behavior.  Ignoring them saves time and effort that can be applied to more beneficial activities.  But they do persist, perhaps expecting an answer some day.

The real head-scratchers, though, are some of the pieces of postal mail.  A few samples will give you an idea of how simple-minded they must think we are.

One arrived addressed to me – or Current Resident.  Inside it said that I am approved for a special offer.  It must be pretty special if Current Resident has also been approved.  It includes a “Non-Transferable Code Number” which I presume can be used by only me (or Current Resident).  If I act before the expiration date, about 50 days later, I can get in on this special deal for a home protection alarm system.  I think if I put it off too long I may face the consequences of receiving another special offer that is limited to only special people like myself (or Current Resident).

Yesterday I received more personal mail, this time from a local car dealer telling me that there was a sudden surge in demand for the 2006 Chrysler Sebring parked in my garage.  If I hurried down to the dealership, they would give me several hundred dollars over book value for my 2006 Chrysler Sebring!  Needless to say the car stayed put, and the dealer will have to look elsewhere to satisfy this sudden, mysterious popularity of cars that are coincidentally just like mine.

A different dealer occasionally invites me to an exclusive sale that is by invitation only.  The invitation is addressed to me (with no mention of Current Resident).  Then a few days later I received a reminder e-mail – I have to give them credit; their research is pretty good to know what car I drive and scout out my e-mail address for follow up.  The e-mail tells me not to forget about the exclusive sale, but at the bottom it prompts me to forward it to my friends.  Somehow the exclusiveness of the sale and message about how special I was to them kind of gets deflated when my friends or anyone else I decide to forward the information to will be equally welcome to participate.

Sorting through these phony sales pitches is child’s play for anyone with a smidgeon of critical thinking, but they continue.  They don't use any sophisticated psychological persuasive techniques.  A logical conclusion is either that these people will not be in business very long because they throw away money on stupid, even insulting, advertising; or that this sort of advertising really does work.  If it is the latter, it’s a sad commentary on the state of our society.

The American Dream Scam

I was shocked and surprised when I came across this article.  The title, “9 things that rule about owning a home” got my attention right away.  As I read through the nine categories I found what I expected to find, traditional and promotional information about home ownership that is either partially or mostly incorrect.  Here they are.

1.     Your money's going to you, not to a landlord.  It goes on to explain that with renting “you're just renting space,” but “money that you put into your home builds equity, the value of your home after the mortgage is subtracted. Loans taken out against your home's equity can be used to put money towards other things, such as college education.”  In reality, especially with the popularity of very low down payment mortgages, most of your payments for the initial years go to interest.  True, you are not renting space; instead you are renting money.  Before the turn of the century, the value of houses increased at approximately the rate of inflation.  You didn’t sell a house at a profit unless you intended to buy a smaller house.  About twenty years ago this changed, but we learned (or at least some of us learned) from the recession resulting from the overdue correction that the surge in housing values was mostly artificial.  Finally, the rate for home equity loans is lower, but that’s because you are risking your house, using it as collateral and exposing yourself and your family to foreclosure if it’s not paid back.

2.     You get tax benefits.  As I explained in detail two weeks ago, the tax deduction is partial at best.  About two in three do not itemize deductions so it does them no good at all.  Those who do benefit only to the extent that their total deductions exceed the standard deduction, which is automatic.  In nearly every case the tax benefits of paying a mortgage are either non-existent or exaggerated.

3.       It's forced savings.  The argument is that “those payments are coming back to you in the form of home equity, which increases your net worth.”  It may increase your wealth on paper, but if you sell the house that equity is swallowed up on a down payment for the next one.  Eventually you will have an asset that is all yours, but it’s not a very liquid asset because you still need some place to live.

4.     You get more for your money.  Sometimes this is true and sometimes it’s not.  The balance between buying and renting fluctuates based on supply and demand in the respective markets.

5.     You have the freedom to make it home.  The argument here is that you don’t need a landlord’s permission to make changes.  You can fix up everything the way you want it.  But you also need to fix everything that goes wrong and pay for it yourself.  I’ve heard it said (and experienced it myself) that when you buy a house you get a hobby:  repairing, replacing and maintaining or researching for a reliable person to do it for you.

6.     You can have pets.  Some rentals also allow pets.

7.     You'll love the stability.  Stability is one side of the coin.  The other is finding that you must move and are stuck with two mortgages until you find a buyer for the first house.

8.     You know everything about the place, because the bank required an inspection, which you paid for, before you moved in.

9.     It’s yours!  "You feel empowered that you actually own something…like you have a piece of the American dream."  Wow, if they can’t get you with the first eight, why not appeal to your ego?

Those are nine very weak reasons to buy a house, every one of them partially or mostly untrue.  I don’t think I am being unusually fussy when I point out that many of these fall under the category of what “Robert J. Samuelson termed a ‘psycho-fact,’ [a] belief that, though not supported by hard evidence, is taken as real because its constant repetition changes the way we experience life.”  As many people found out over the past 10 years, buying a house is not something to be taken lightly or to be done without reading the fine print and fully understanding the situation.