The first chapter of SuperFreakonomics, and a recent Q&A, addressed the pervasive male-female wage gap, but there does seem to be one subset of women who make more money than their male peers. “In 2008, single, childless women between ages 22 and 30 were earning more than their male counterparts in most U.S. cities, with incomes that were 8% greater on average, according to an analysis of Census Bureau data,” reports the Wall Street Journal. The gap is driven by factors like higher female college graduation rates, the increasing wage premium for college degrees, and disappearing jobs in male-dominated fields. Consistent with earlier findings, the data also indicate that “women tend to see wages stagnate or fall after they have children.” [%comments]
Women Who Make More
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Michael,
That is false. Once you compare people with IDENTICAL backgrounds except for gender, you find income is identical. Look it up, the studies are there.
I believe this may be about the economics of the diminishing number of high status positions. Hypothesis:
The number of high status positions have decreased because of mergers of smaller companies into bigger companies. (Take for example hospitals- 30 years ago most cities had numerous smaller hospitals and now these have been consolidated)
One of the huge savings comes from needing one ceo instead of 10). Males as a group tend to be more status hungry then females and therefore more disruptive in the current environment because there are fewer high status jobs for them to eventually be promoted into. Therefore companies will pay a premium for a non reproducing female because they are less problematic to deal with vs a male and less threatening to those in upper management. See Salpolsky “The Trouble with Testosterone”.
I would imagine that this trend is much more pronounced among minorities.
In response to:
“Also note that women’s dedication to work and desire for career achievements may tend to “stagnate and fall” after having kids. This is often a willful choice on their part.”
This may be true on the part of some very priviliged women, but on the whole, it is the fact that childcare falls disproportionately to women regardless of their job situation or their marriage status that determines this outcome. If a woman is unable to “go the extra mile” by staying late, working off-hours, attending weekend conferences, etc., because of child care concerns, her male OR female counterparts who aren’t “burdened” by these other priorities will certainly shoot ahead of her in promotions and job offers.
Many a woman has found that if you don’t want to completely miss out on raising your own children, you will be passed over at work time and time again. There is nothing “willful” about this choice. Unless you call the choice between a rock and a hard place “willful.”
The only true wage comparison is two people doing the same job and what they make. Anything else is just dumb. My wife and I have the exact same degree from the same university and we graduated the same year. At first we pretty much made the same wage within probably five thousand. She stopped working 7 years ago to stay home with the children. Well she will never earn as much as me even when she goes back to work.
Will we be considered in the study that we should make the same wage?
And it is puzzling that women want equal pay with men.
Why is it simply assumed that a woman’s career must suffer more when children are born? Even in a post-feminist world, women are expected to put aside their careers and take on a disproportionate amount of housework.
Sorry, but the glass ceiling is very real and comparing female college graduates to male high school dropouts is misleading at best. Compare men and women doing the same work and track women’s progress relative to men if you want an honest study.
Thank you for another poorly executed study that confirms male chauvinist’s preexisting biases.
Drill-Baby-Drill Drill Team,
I see gender bias is alive and well in 2010.