I think there’s a misrepresentation in the follow realm of income inequality between men and women. The gender wage gap is something only being proven in a pseudo, emotionally charged way. I think this is important because there’s an idea of falsehood being spread and the questions regarding income inequality and the wage gap are not the right questions that should be asked. This is an issue spreading throughout the country and I think this is something that may or may not need to be addressed federally. Solution to this problem is a bit hard to formulate, considering the various degrees and dimensions involved in such an issue. I do propose one thing and although this is a little hard for me to articulate because I don’t think more government can solve this issue. I am not rejecting the idea that men make more money than women, what I am trying to address is the why. This isn’t an issue that regards political involved. This is a more philosophical question which yields actual results and ultimately, it is a personal choice. The solution is rather simple, women need to specialize in different areas.
For example, CEOs who are female make more than male CEOs. In 2017, the annual Equilar/Associated Press CEO Pay Study found that the median income for female CEOs was $13,093,444, with the average being $14,488,643. Meanwhile, their male counterpart had a median compensation of $11,376,284 and an average of $12,648,010. There is a significance in this argument. This illustrate that highly skilled women seem to make more than highly skilled men. Unmarried, single, female CEOs make more than married and single male CEOs. I think this is best because the differences in labor between men and women are extensive. Men generally work more labor-intensive jobs than women. The only way, for the median average- women are going to have to follow the law of demand and flow into career paths that are needed today, such as historically male dominated fields like engineering and technology.
Another issue that counter argues the idea that flattening the gender differences in the work field produces any difference is the example shown in Scandinavian countries. I digress a bit but one field, specifically, high tech, basically developed after the playing field for men and women was more or less leveled when woman were allowed to work. What happened in the 1970s; and despite that, there aren’t anywhere near as many women in tech, there’s far more women in caring professions and you see that particularly in Scandinavia where they’ve done everything they can to equalize the playing field—it’s 20-to-1 female to male nurses, and 20-to-1 male to female engineers. What happens if you flatten out the environmental reasons, which is what’s happened Scandinavia, is you maximize the biological differences. You don’t get rid of them, you maximize them. What’s happened in Scandinavia is that men and women are more different from a temperament and personality perspective, and also in terms of their interests. They’re more different in Scandinavia than they are anywhere else in the world. I think this works best because here, in countries that have virtually flattened the gender differences, we see the total opposite. Because of the distribution of gender in fields are much more flexible, we see a polarization in the work field. Women dominate fields where there is extensive care given to individuals such as nurses.
A less than obvious fact to take interest in though, is how efficient will this approach be? Women earn more degrees than men and men still earn more money than women, despite being more educated. “A record 25% of husbands are now married to wives who have more education than they do. This has reversed a long-term trend since the 1960s when it was much more common for a husband to have more education than his wife” (Wang). Despite having been more educated, women are no longer following that cultural phenomenon where one has to “marry up”. The standards of living for women have fallen drast3ically because of this. Men are following this trend and the distributions of income say so. More than 7-in-10 married men (73%) had a higher income than their spouse, although the share was down from 91% in 1960. During the same period, the share of married women who out-earned their spouses rose from 6% to 25%. This supports the idea that, despite being more educated, the gender wage gap is still present. It stands by still as a hard issue to solve. How do we fix this complex issue?
One group that hopes to tackle the income issue has manifested itself in a different way. In California, there exists the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA). This is a program that has helped people looking to buy or rent a house. Their mission is a simple one- providing financing and programs so lower to moderate income Californians have a home. Established in 1975, CalHFA was chartered as the state’s affordable housing lender. The Agency’s Multifamily Division finances affordable rental housing through partnerships with jurisdictions, developers and more, while its Single-Family Division provides first mortgage loans and down payment assistance to first-time homebuyers. CalHFA is a completely self-supporting state agency, and its bonds are repaid by revenues generated through mortgage loans, not taxpayer dollars (CalHFA). This is a good approach to take because by nature, women are left behind in the lower income spectrum. One of the disadvantaged minorities we have are women in our communities. When it comes to income inequality, women are, in retrospect, on the lower end of the spectrum of income. What exactly happens when these women fall of the edge of self-sufficiency? There are a few groups that try to address this through their efforts in helping these women.
A specific issue I want to further address is domestic violence. Often time, these women are subject to the only income in the house, being provided by the husband or a boyfriend. Women are found in a tricky situation where they must sustain the abusive relationship because they cannot financially support themselves alone. There are groups who are trying to help these women gain independence. One of these groups is The Good Shepherd Shelter. Good Shepherd Shelter envisions a world where all women and children are freed from the cycle of domestic violence and have an opportunity to live their lives fully, sustained by the sense of their dignity, independence, and potential to contribute to the lives of others. One of their main goals is to help the mother to become independent financially and emotionally so she never has to subject her children to violence again.
So how do we fix it? I don’t think this is an issue our government can dictate. This is an issue that stems from the root of our societies, that being the individual. It’s rather hard to implement the kind of solution I am advocating for. I think though, there is a good chance that going back to the traditional, nuclear household could work. This is just one dimension that I am aiming at because it would require the patriarchy to keep its dominance. We could try to approach the Norwegian way and try to level off the gender play in each respected field. Perhaps there could be a different outcome in comparison to what happened in these countries. The gender gaps between occupations polarized even more so which lead to women and men to play their stereotypes. I think in a multiethnic country, this could have different effects.
With the more freedom we gain, there will always be more and newer barriers to cross to achieve the world we all deserve to live in. Solutions reached by government can only get us so far and I believe, we as a people, need to change first. As seen by the chaotic clashing between the left and the right in recent years, this issue is what plagues us the most. How can we move forward? The group discussion had only shown me how far income inequality stems. It also showed me how people understand this complex situation. They look towards the government to help them, to be baby sat.
The Praeto distribution will always exist in all trading games, capitalism just happens to work the best, and even though it works the best, it doesn’t solve real life issues that we are plagued by. My stances on my ideology preferences has remained the same, if not strengthened. Only good comes through good arguments. It shows you whether you’re wrong. If one can argue, then they are aware of the exchanges and this may be a good linage to show you how right you are and strength you ideas or how wrong you are and what you need to change.
