Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Is the Male Marriage Premium?

econlog.econlib.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 119 posts

Re: What Is the Male Marriage Premium?

#41

Post by nilkn »

strictnein wrote: post #14
ianai wrote: post #3

They routinely give the men with children/wives the better hours, pay, and whatever else at my work. They just changed several peoples' schedules so that my peer could have Saturdays off with his kid. Contrast that with myself: I have requested the same shift and been denied. I don't have kids. I also have better reasons to be on that shift. In my anecdotal experience, it appears classist. I would file that under 'hu…

> "I don't have kids. I also have better reasons to be on that shift." It may be unfair, but if the person who is making this decision has children, they likely view spending time with children as the most compelling reason.

I think the idea is that employees with kids are being given extra perks at work because they have kids. Viewed abstractly, the parents are being compensated more than the non-parents, when all forms of compensation -- financial and otherwise -- are taken into account.

(That's the idea anyway. Whether it's actually true I cannot say. There are so many confounding variables and pretty much no conclusion can be drawn from one example.)

Re: What Is the Male Marriage Premium?

#42

Post by kefka »

geebee wrote: post #28

There may be one under-reported angle on this. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264513198_Penalizin... There is clearly a correlation between men having children and men getting higher salaries, and the reverse for women. However, this may reflect the fact that women are more likely to withdraw from work to take care of children (regardless of whether they'd prefer to), and men may double down on work. Women…

So, is it fair to pay women less?

/dons firesuit

Discussing marriage, pregnancy, childbearing status or the like is an absolute no-go for employers. So, the ideal solution is to consider all women capable of this.

Because of women's protected status of childbearing and leaving/returning, it would seem from a pure business perspective, that women are liabilities that can leave the job at any time and get it back, legally. What is this... scheduling latitude actually worth? I'd really like to see statistics on this. But on a sniff-test, this seems probably true and the reason why women are paid less: more risk.

Men don't have the same options here, at least in the US. Ideally, to "Level the Playing Field", I'd like to see men with the same rights as women. But alas, we're not really headed into more workers' rights territory.

Re: What Is the Male Marriage Premium?

#43

Post by cookiecaper »

dikdik wrote: post #27
cmdrfred wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say you have "better reasons", childcare is pretty important when you consider all the downstream effects. Are you certain you are objective on this?

It shouldn't matter if his reasons are he wants to sit at home, get high, and eat doritos. Businesses aren't families, employees shouldn't be discriminated against because another employee needs/wants help.

If two people are in competition for the same resource (a more desirable shift), someone is going to lose. The company has to choose one of them, making at least one happy, or neither of them, upsetting both. How are they supposed to "not discriminate" here? They are forced to choose which employee should receive the shift.

Bear in mind that if the tables were turned, the other guy would be going all over the internet saying "My employer gave this shift to another guy because they hate children and discriminate against families with kids", and the same responses would be had in the opposite direction.

Making these choices is always going to alienate someone, but they're a fact of life.

Re: What Is the Male Marriage Premium?

#44

Post by rlpb »

Have they controlled for age? Or is that included in their claim of having controlled for experience?

Older men are more likely to be married (since finding a partner takes a variable amount of time, and the marriage rate is higher than the divorce rate). And salaries also tend to go up over time as employees build their careers.

This would of course be part of the author's "Explanation #1: Ability bias.". I'm just surprised that this sub-explanation isn't explicitly called out.

Re: What Is the Male Marriage Premium?

#45

Post by TulliusCicero »

kefka wrote: post #42
geebee wrote: post #28

There may be one under-reported angle on this. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264513198_Penalizin... There is clearly a correlation between men having children and men getting higher salaries, and the reverse for women. However, this may reflect the fact that women are more likely to withdraw from work to take care of children (regardless of whether they'd prefer to), and men may double down on work. Women…

So, is it fair to pay women less? /dons firesuit Discussing marriage, pregnancy, childbearing status or the like is an absolute no-go for employers. So, the ideal solution is to consider all women capable of this. Because of women's protected status of childbearing and leaving/returning, it would seem from a pure business perspective, that women are liabilities that can leave the job at any time and get it back, lega…

From an individual homo economicus perspective, paying people who have heavy life obligations like kids less than people who can work tons of hours is rational. That's why government regulation is important if we want a different result.

Re: What Is the Male Marriage Premium?

#48

Post by antisthenes »

Oxitendwe wrote: post #29
ianai wrote: post #3

They routinely give the men with children/wives the better hours, pay, and whatever else at my work. They just changed several peoples' schedules so that my peer could have Saturdays off with his kid. Contrast that with myself: I have requested the same shift and been denied. I don't have kids. I also have better reasons to be on that shift. In my anecdotal experience, it appears classist. I would file that under 'hu…

Of course you were denied, he has standing to ask for time off (his kid) and you don't. Having children is incredibly important to society at large and it makes sense incentivize it, especially at the expense of people who don't have any yet. When you have kids, you will also have access to these perks.

Guess I'll just start lying about having a kid then.

Re: What Is the Male Marriage Premium?

#49

Post by dasil003 »

DonHopkins wrote: post #35
cm2187 wrote: post #33

Let's read this through the current hysterical liberal lens: unmarried men are unacceptably discriminated! Companies must publish statistics on how they pay married vs unmarried male employees. And they need to train their staff to understand and fight their own bias against unmarried men! The reason for this imbalance can only be outrageous discrimination. Anyone who thinks or suggests otherwise should be silenced.

It sounds like you're looking through some kind of lens that makes liberals look hysterical to you, and you sound pretty hysterical about liberals yourself. You should get your prescription checked, because you're seeing things that aren't there. Remember: liberals are the one who are for paid family leave, which today's "family values" conservatives are against (except for themselves). [1] "Speaker of the House Paul…

I think it's valuable to have multiple lenses. One thing I feel has increased dramatically over the last few decades is that if you use the wrong lens when speaking the wrong audience then a witch hunt ensues. Something about the internet has enabled tribalism without personal liability, which is a powder keg of situation that leads to the sort of political outcomes we are currently seeing.

Re: What Is the Male Marriage Premium?

#50

Post by trevyn »

Until a couple weeks ago, I worked at a large Bay Area tech company with very generous parental leave. I noticed that a lot of people there were having kids.

I think it makes sense from a conpany perspective, because having kids (and a marriage) seems to make people much more risk-averse, so they're more likely to stay at the nice, stable company.

Which is helpful for the company when attrition is one of your big problems.

Post reply on HN