JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for RADSTATS Archives


RADSTATS Archives

RADSTATS Archives


RADSTATS@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

RADSTATS Home

RADSTATS Home

RADSTATS  September 2016

RADSTATS September 2016

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Gender pay gap =3 statistical issues, Endogeneity, "Inactivity", Heckman

From:

Wendy Olsen <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Wendy Olsen <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 27 Sep 2016 12:09:21 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (146 lines)

Hi Folks there is a big statistical issue lying in here around Parttime work status.

If we 'include' this among the independent variables in a wage regression, it 'takes up' a lot of 'causal weight'.

But in reality it is endogenous.  Working part-time is in turn affected by other matters which are among the independent variables.

In my work on the gender pay gap in UK I have omitted the variable, WORKS PARTTIME.

Overall I think that's best, because it is a conjuncture which is not independent of distal causes.

But when we omit 'Number of Children Living at Home', which in a wage regression is only an indirect (ie distal) cause,
(as often happens outside Economics when the statistician uses a Wage Regression among Workers but omits the 'Economically inactive',
and avoids using the Mills Ratio or Heckman selectivity formulation, through a cut in the reference population), we get reduced explanatory power.

We then have  omitted a major proxy for women doing child care more than men:  we have omitted both Children and Parttime.

So in some cases, when Children is not in the equation, we may need Parttime, but it is now a proxy for the presence of childcare responsibilities 
and hence it represents the whole of society's stereotypical expectation, That a woman is more responsible than a man for these varied duties, including cooking, cleaning and so on. 

Ironically the meaning of the coefficient on 'Parttime' is different for those with, and without, children at home.

I am worried that in Statistics textbooks the advice is shorn of all real meaning and reference.  The variables are just seen as part of a correlation matrix, and 
not in their real world social representation role, which is (here) a mixture of proxy, proximate, distal, endogenous, stereotypical, and so on which are all causal, but 
they get all mixed up.  

The variables are not just representing the thing which is in their name, e.g. WORKS PARTTIME.  They also represent the causal mechanism that we are trying to estimate as the regression coefficient, 
e.g. lost wages if the person works parttime. 

If we don't train our statisticians both IN and OUTSIDE economics to be sensitive to al this, we may end up 
with journal editors having ridiculous arguments about one thing (endogeneity) and ignoring the real issue ( social stereotyping and its real effects).

This is why I keep talking about being a 'realist'.  The only way to choose the X variables for a statistical regression is to develop a working knowledge of all the proposed X factors, and then start to 
choose or develop a representation.  

FYI The Heckman formulation:
Eq 1.  Wage = F ( X, IMR)
IMR is the inverse risk of being active in the labour market, the Mills Ratio. 
Now call it lambda.
Lambda = G ( X, Z)
Z includes having children living at home.


Wendy Olsen

This message was sent from Wendy Olsen
Social Statistics Discipline
   (and Cathie Marsh Institute)
Room G20 Humanities Building
University of Manchester
Manchester M13 9PL

Next big events:  Sept. 12-13th we are in Panel 1, Labour as Method, at the DevtStudiesAssoc. in Oxford. our talk is at 2 pm in Magdalen College common room.
Facebook group on Integrated Mixed Methods Network, all welcome (it says 'closed group', just ask, and you can join) QCA TRAINING is ongoing.
________________________________________
From: email list for Radical Statistics [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Paul Bivand [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 27 September 2016 12:54
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Gender pay gap = "Too few senior women"?

One of the major issues is that professional/managerial jobs are still very hostile to part-time working - and particularly for promotion/recruitment of women who want to work part-time. Public sector ones have been a bit of an exception to that to some extent only.

This leads to lots of graduate women working well below their skill level in jobs that do provide part-time opportunities fitting round families/caring responsibilities (like admin/clerical jobs or even retail). It's one of the main drivers in what gets called 'overqualification' though the researchers in the area seem strangely reluctant to even look at the gender/family situations.

Because women who want to work part-time are forced out of their career area, getting back in and securing promotion to a level equivalent to what they would have been without leaving is very difficult.

Paul Bivand   |   Associate Director of Analysis & Statistics   |   Learning and Work Institute

t. 020 7840 8335   |   tw. @LWpaulbivand

e. [log in to unmask]



www.learningandwork.org.uk |   @LearnWorkUK   |   0116 204 4200




The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient please return the e-mail to the sender and delete from your mailbox.



-----Original Message-----
From: email list for Radical Statistics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of jay ginn
Sent: 27 September 2016 08:59
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Gender pay gap = "Too few senior women"?

I'm surprised at the suggestion that if there were equal proportions of men and women in senior jobs this would reduce or even remove the gender pay gap.
Tracey Warrens article ,A privileged pole, showed that even women with the advantage of a degree and no breaks for childcare earned less than similarly qualified men and this translated into smaller private pensions, Hope I've remembered correctly.
As others rightly say, caring breaks and periods in pt work contribute to women's lower lifetime earnings and my own research in ,degrees of freedom, 2002, shows how women's median earnings, ft emp rate and private pension membership all take a dive when there is child aged under 5 , at each educational level of women using Ghs for cross sectional synthetic life course. Joshi and Davies used longitudinal data to model hypothetical lifetime earnings for several typical female life courses, calculating losses due to motherhood.  Though eldercare is also relevant.
Concerning pensions, Dave, reliance on derived pensions from a spouse is risky individually and unsatisfactory  as  policy, anachronistic. Divorced women are the poorest group of pensioners as most of them had children to raise alone. And a growing group.
While state pensions are catching up, belatedly, with changing family forms, private pensions still transmit women's typical life course into low or no such pension, on average 53% of meNs for those over 65 who have any, including widows. That was 2001 Data see article Social Trends 2004, but has it changed since then?
Jay

Sent from my iPad

> On 26 Sep 2016, at 10:22, John Bibby <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I've just been listening to Woman's Hour which suggested that much of today's gender pay gap can be explained by there being "Too few senior women". One spokeswoman even suggested that if you control for this, women often earn more.
>
> Is this storyline sustainable with existing statistics, does anyone know? If not, how much of the gender pay gap can be 'explained' by seniority etc.?
>
> I do not know what the best sources for this are. It used to be the "New Earnings Survey (NES)", which if it exists at all is now far from new.
>
> JOHN BIBBY
> ****************************************************** Please note
> that if you press the 'Reply' button your message will go only to the
> sender of this message. If you want to reply to the whole list, use
> your mailer's 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
> to [log in to unmask] Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list
> are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative
> of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics
> Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and
> activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are
> invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
> *******************************************************

******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
NIACE and the Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion have merged to become Learning and Work Institute. Please follow our Twitter account @LearnWorkUK for the latest news.


This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual(s) addressed in the message.  If you are not the named addressee, you should not disseminate, distribute, or copy this e-mail.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that disclosing, distributing, or copying this e-mail is strictly prohibited.

******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************

******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager