White women earn less that black women
 

Finally!

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/28/ed.../28income.html

March 28, 2005
Income Gaps Found Among the College-Educated
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON, March 28 (AP) - Black and Asian women with bachelor's degrees earn slightly more than similarly educated white women, and white men with four-year degrees make more than anyone else.

A white woman with a bachelor's degree typically earned $37,800 in 2003, compared with $43,700 for a college-educated Asian woman and $41,100 for a black woman, according to data to be released Monday by the Census Bureau. Hispanic women took home $37,600 a year.

The bureau did not say why the differences exist. Economists and sociologists suggest several possible factors: the tendency of minority women, especially blacks, to more often hold more than one job or work more than 40 hours a week, and the tendency of black professional women who take time off to have a child to return to the work force sooner than others.

Employers in some fields may give financial incentives to young black women, who graduate from college at higher rates than young black men, said Roderick Harrison, a researcher at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a research organization in Washington.

A white male with a college diploma earns far more than any similarly educated man or woman - $66,000 a year, the Census Bureau said. Among men with bachelor's degrees, Asians earned $52,000 a year, Hispanics $49,000 and blacks $45,000.

Workplace discrimination and the continuing difficulties of minorities to get into higher-paying management positions could help explain the disparities among men, experts say.

The figures come from the Census Bureau's annual look at educational achievement in America, culled from a survey in March 2004.

-Rudey

At what point in their life is this being sampled from?

I find it extremely doubtful that any group just out of college makes $66,000 a year. Unless these were all taken from the same point in their career (not necessarily age-wise) the figures will definitly be wrong.

if you look at historically...
white women have not had as much need to work as minority women. Plus you need to look at what the career percentages are.
The majority of white women I know are at Iowa State for things like sociology, Human nutrition, HRI, education.
The majority of minority women I know are at Iowa State for things like engineering, veterinary medicine, pre-med, pre-law etc.
Not sure if that's just anecdotal or if it mirrors any real trend, but that would provide for a wage gap if it was a real trend.

In an attempt to get this thread back on topic, I'm curious about one thing. The article mentions that one of the possible explanations of the difference is b/c minority women are more likely to hold more than one job. If gains are truly being made, then why would the minority women have to take on these extra jobs? It almost leads me to believe that there's still a disparity in pay occurring here.

It'd be interesting to measure the differences on a more standardized scale, such as comparing the salary of white women vs. minority women vs. white men filling the same positions.

It's more important to look at hourly wage.

Still it is somewhat interesting to see the totals made.

-Rudey

I know that in my personal experience, the Chinese girls I went to school with were more likely to lean towards business and sciences as majors than liberal arts. If you're, say, a history major, you really aren't going to expect to earn tons of money unless you go to law school. If you're in business, your chances of getting a job immediately after graduation are a bit higher.

good question.

I think what they did is add up the salaries of college grad women and it divide it by the number of women in the sample. This isn't really the best way to ascertain equality of earnings. The results are screwed up by the fact that some people have two jobs or are in different careers or have been working longer or shorter amounts of time.
I think that this does probably reflect a more even payscale between black and white female college grads. But it also reflects other problems. The black women in the study were more likely to have high salaries because they have two jobs or took less time off for childbearing. I imagine that's because most of them are married to minority men who still earn significantly less than white men.

Where did you get that "method"? This is the census by the way.

-Rudey

That was my understanding of both the article and the census. Why?

I don't think that's how the census works, but I'm not positive. I'm also pretty sure the article didn't say that. I think what they did was ask each person what their total yearly income along with other questions.

-Rudey

My point was that they weren't comparing people based on equivalent experience or equivalent jobs. They were just averaging.

Example:
All people are college grad women:

#1 - graduated 25 years ago and is at top salary - 120K
#2 - graduated last week and is in social work - 30K
#3 - just came back from taking 4 years off to raise kids 40K
#4 - works part time and raises kids 20K
White average is 52.5K

#1 - has two jobs (possible discrimination here - doesn't distinguish in terms of how much each job pays - only lists total amount earned) - 80K
#2 - graduated 25 years ago and is at top salary (discrimination here) - 110K
#3 - just came back from taking 6 months off to raise kids 55K
#4 - graduated last week and is in social work - 30K
Black average 68.75

See my point by averaging this way and not controlling for variables you can "hide" discrimination or get misleading results.

Note: this is an example I made up. Do not jump down my throat about where I got the numbers. It is just an example. Chill.

P.S. If I am wrong and this is not how it was done feel free to correct. It was just my interpretation from reading.

I'm not jumping down your throat so relax.

Anyway, yes that is what an average is. But I think what they were comparing is college-educated women. I understand what you're saying about how someone with 2 jobs that are below another person's 1 job can look like they make more money. I think that nobody denies that but the total amounts are also interesting right? It just leads to question of spending (and spending on a family is different from one person) also.

-Rudey

Re: White women earn less that black women
 

Exactly and this has always been the case.

In addition, minority women are more likely to be in the workforce whereas white women are "afforded" the opportunity to be stay-at-home wives and mothers.

So, why is this a cause for celebration?

No.

It is more interesting and socially significant to look at incomes within and across racial and ethnic groups for comparable education levels and occupational statuses. Many researchers have done and continue to do this, though.

Not controlling for number of jobs when calculating and comparing household incomes is good for Census purposes and relatively nothing more.

Well, thanks for waking up to the real world. Your coffee and breakfast muffin await you. :p

Many studies have done that and the findings confirm what your first paragraph states. There is disparity based on race and gender. :)

I figure I do about 15 hours of public relations freelance a month at $75.00 an hour. So that's $1,125.00 a month before taxes. $13,500 a year. Yikes, that's pretty depressing!

I'd like to apologize to the rest of America's White women for holding down your average :(

Of course this is my opinion and I have little research the back it up, but I have seen that most college-educated and graduated African American women that are in the workforce work for reasons more that just only making money... Many of them could be single parents with 1 or more children to rear...

Employers do look at that for providing increases in pay--i.e. based on a person's life situation--does he or she have a family to support?

Most out of college grads that have not gone into the military afterward, or go to graduate/professional schools but decide to get jobs may or may not have a huge difference in pay, hence the reasoning in finding a secondary job to pay the differential...

For those of you on student loans, how long do you have before you have to pay them back after graduation? Just asking.

I think the loan thing kicks in within 6 months of graduation if I remember right. You can delay it by going back to school.

The reason why the total income matters is in regards to the spending. Working 2 jobs and making a lot of money for yourself is different from working 2 jobs, supporting a kid, and spending money as opposed to saving it.

-Rudey

It depended on the loan - for some it was six months, for some it was longer than that (not exactly sure, maybe 8-10).

She wouldn't spring for an X Box??? :confused: I say get yourself a new White girl :)

I think, again just my opinion, that there are some folks that work two jobs to live the "fabulously broke lifestyle"--like Suze Orman's books says...

Then there are those that have to work 2 jobs to support their family, because they do not get any support from anywhere else.

Either way, it is about choices in life...

And saving may or may not be optional in either case...

I know when I was young, I was pretty uneducated about saving... I would say, what for? But now, that I am older, I wish I had saved a small percentage of my income, even if it was a CD that I could not touch for 2-5 years and use the money for items at appreciate--i.e. real estate and investments...

That's what I am saying. The total income numbers sorta lead to spending habits/savings rates between races and sexes.

I'm sure the marketing companies out there already have the answer and it's probably posted on the net somewhere.

-Rudey

Basically, the thing is no matter what color, women have to work to help support The Family.

Opinions are like asswholes, everyone has one.

Hell, We all are on the edge of living, breathing and dieing.:(

You always come out of nowhere and say general things trying to shut down a conversation. These issues are complex, Tom, and often they exists BECAUSE not enough everyday people talk about them. This is why we are discussing this. If you are irked by the topic (which is ironic since you tend to irk everyone else most of the time) don't opine. Simply continue to browse the topics until you find one that suits YOUR intellect. :rolleyes:

Interesting you say that, because there are those of us that actually have these kinds of discussions...

However, it might be too little, too late when one gets later on in life...

Here's the thread I am talking about...

Well, he summarized the "crux of the issue" incorrectly in his post. That says a lot. :p

I have them all day and everyday. :)

@ your first paragraph: That goes for the average American, regardless of race or gender. But, you are correct in that it has a differential impact on women, blacks, and Hispanics because of the wage gap (which is fueled by persisting gender and race inequality).

Regardless of the "fabulously broke lifestyle hypothesis" and the "maybe these black women are single mothers hypothesis," the main point is that black women are more likely to be in the labor force AND to work 2 jobs for wage gap reasons.

Because blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately poor, they are least likely to receive support from "somewhere else." This is compounded by gender and is reflected in black women's greater "need" to be in the laborforce and to have more than one job.

May be so, however, I was one of the few women that worked 2 jobs when I was younger because I had to pay rent. Now, where I lived was of issue, which may have put me fabulously broke. However, I think I did it mainly to have "comfort items", rather than making ends meet...

But that's just me and my life. The census data does not suggest a social implication, the data just show numbers with a relative correlation to whatever the question was that they designed: i.e. what types of people are getting paid the highest wages--or even more broader than that...

I even doubt they developed a hypothesis until after they got all the data calculated and noticed some trends... It would be nice to see their actual stats that they used.

Of course the census data does not suggest social implications. That's why there are people like myself who understand and research the social implications. :p The Census is not a research tool in the sense of hypotheses and using theoretical foundations for their work. They are only a clearing house and a data collection unit. Similar to other research institutes that just collect the data and crunch the numbers.

There are a lot of people who have "comfort items," but there are MANY more who are struggling to just make ends meet. This is moreso for families with children because children make up over half of the people in poverty and near-poverty. So, if you thought "comfort items" meant not going to bed hungry or being able to afford nutritional meals, I would agree with you.

Right so the spending is interesting. I remember walking in Jamaica, Queens (a black neighborhood in NY) and it was obviously not full of well-to-do people, but there seemed to be an abundance of spending on clothing and sneakers. That spending to be fabulously broke is somewhat baffling.

-Rudey

Just to keep it in perspective: The average American lives paycheck to paycheck yet lives in "abundance."

I know that census data is just a data collection unit. And after the data is collected, it is an invaluable tool to have some series of sociological hypotheses tested just based on the numbers with the appropriate stats.

However, in 2000, the Census Bureau did make a concerted effort to "outreach" to communities of color for data collection so that the "needs and resources" are allocated to municipal/localities, state and federal budgets... That was the primary dictate made by the Census 2000 committee upon presentation of the application to various audiences at national conventions...

But "Census 2000" did allow folks to "pre-select" there "racial/ethnic" categories into several, which does skew data interpretation... i.e. if folks select more than one ethnic identifier, then by basic number crunching alone, does that variable get counted one time or more? Even if you do multivariate ANOVA, you still get data skewing...

Like DST Chaos said, folks still live paycheck to paycheck, yet lives in "abundance". Whether it is in the 'hood with new spinners--or whether it is in a brownstone that is about to foreclosed...

Monet, your income and spending habits are both important aspects of the equation.

If the incomes are higher for whites in family units and the spending is higher, then what?

-Rudey

I think your question has many answers to it... You have got to remember history plays are HUGE role in the "economic development" of the African American community as a whole...

After MLK was assasinated, many affirmative action programs were dedicated to "incorporating African Americans" into the mainstream of society by instilling similar values of a "nuclear family unit"... Most folks did not take too kindly to this act, black or white...

But somehow by the time of Ronald Reagan, there were a "handful" of upper middle class African Americans that could "play the game" with the "hand that was dealt" and "make a profit" from it, legally...

So what you are talking about is ~20 years of "active investments" into the Stock Market by African Americans as a community as a whole...

Well, how many African American top Fortune 500 companies are brokerage firms?

With the exception of AMEX, there are only a handful of African American CEO or corporate execs sitting on boards and most of them male...

With more than 75% female headed households, how long do you think it will take folks of African descent to fathom catching up to other ethnic groups level of investing within their communities given there is a global economy?

The fact is the United States government did some unsavory things ~30 years ago that destroyed the economic base of the African American community that they have yet to own up to...

When discount brokerages first came into existance they were offering $100/trade as opposed to $500/trade. Now I can put in an order for $5. In the last 20-30 years, is where the market has really made some rapid changes. Prior to that, investing was something left for only the very wealth Americans and it was limited since there weren't so many companies offering tech innovations.

Here is a list of famous Black fortune 500 employees. Obviously, it's not expansive but there are folks like Vernon Jordan and Stanley O'Neal who work at these brokerages. And ML is a bulge bracket, there are quite a few MBE firms out there that do work on AfAm client or get work from non-black companies because of their MBE status.

But if a black household makes less money than a white household and spends more on short-term items like clothing, where would the money come from for investing?

-Rudey

Then it all balances out and results in the same thing...overspending and an inability to accumulate wealth and have a safety net in times of economic downturn.

$100,000K income + $99,000K spending = living from paycheck to paycheck

$12,000 income + $11,500 spending = living from paycheck to paycheck


The difference is that whites disproportionately have intergenerational mobility and the passing down of wealth. Whites are also more likely to have family members and friends with money or networks who can increase their profit margin.

So, you are right that there IS a difference. However, talking about black spending as an explanation for the findings of certain studies is a cop-out.

Well, I guess I am one of the Majority of Poor.:(

Payceck to pay check. I am so regimented because of Gasoline price, Fod Price and Booze Price! My 3 damn vices but out of need.

It may or may not make a difference what color someone is. If someone does not want to work, they wont. If some want to or need to work a job or several, they will.

Never make a judgement stand because of the way You live compare to others. Have you been there? If not, dont group all into a little censuse.

The Economics of today are a lot different than they were yesterday. Called expendable Income. Living above The Means is more so because of the Ethic of today.