How women's education is contributing to income inequality

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/29/new-academic-study-links-rising-income-inequality-to-assortive-mating/

Of course it's been overall good for society that women have gotten more education and income since WWII, but there are consequences. I couldn't find the Economist article, but they had a chart showing marriage preferences for 1960s America. Men were more likely to marry women of similar education status (which correlates to income), but there was a decent level of "mixed education" households - maybe due to childhood sweethearts, family-encouraged marriages, etc.

In the 21st Century, dual-income households and "assortative mating" has gotten much more common. Now men with HS education almost exclusively marry women of similar status, and same goes for college or grad-school educated men. I guess it makes sense, as the modern American youth is likely to meet his or her mate at school or on the job (or through online dating sites that try to match demos). And of course there are intellectual, geographic, and class compatibility issues that make it less likely for a highly educated person to marry a poorly educated one. But this is resulting in either very rich or very poor households, and it's less likely that a lower-income family can "pull a Cinderella" and increase their wealth/quality of life through marriage.

Of course I'm not blaming women for any of this. Apart from love, I think most of us would recognize the benefits of marrying a more educated/wealthy mate. So professionals marry professionals, and blue collar/service workers marry the same. When controlling for other factors, assortative mating caused the Gini coefficient (inequality metric where 1 = perfect inequality and 0 = no inequality) to rise from 0.34 to 0.43 (+26%) over 1960-2005 in this Pew study's data.

I'm not sure what can be done about this, or if anything should be done. But the IMF and others said that income inequality is the root cause of many structural social problems. Wealthy couples tend to live in better neighborhoods with better schools. Their kids will have health, safety, social, and intellectual advantages vs. lower-income children. They will succeed in college and career, and likely marry a similarly successful person. But all this suggests that overall social mobility is on the decline in the US, with no signs of improvement.

Surprisingly, the GOP presidential candidates have spoken a lot about inequality/pressure on the middle class/American Dream so far. But it's likely lip-service, as they still want to gut social services and cut taxes for the "job creators". Obama and other Democrats have also talked a lot about the minimum wage, workplace sexism, and the unfair playing field. I wonder how much of an issue it will be in 2016, and if we can do anything about the "Great Divide".

States that are failing their residents

Ohio has a 96% passing rate on its state reading test, but matriculates students whose reading skills are worse than 75% of the nation's kids.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/ohios-third-grade-reading-test-miss-goal/

South Carolina leads the country in domestic abuse, often reinforced by religious mysoginy and lack of public services for victims.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/04/20/401030909/post-and-courier-of-charleston-s-c-wins-pulitzer-for-public-service

Apple and Facebook offer employees egg freezing benefit

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/15/upshot/egg-freezing-as-a-work-benefit-some-women-see-darker-message.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1

News broke that Apple and Facebook provide a new benefit to female employees: they will cover the costs of egg freezing up to $20K. Bloomberg Businessweek says this is the "great equalizer" to "liberate" women, but I call BS. It is pretty disturbing to me for several reasons.

We know that tech is fairly misogynist and gender-unequal, especially in leadership and technical roles. Despite Sanberg's "Lean In" evangelism, most FB leaders are male (the major female execs are her, and in the HR dept). Apple and Google are similar. I don't know if the egg freezing benefit is the most crucial thing that women in tech (or prospective women) need now. In this 2011 list, Apple-FB-Google did not make the top 100 best companies to work for as a mom, despite offering great mat-leave, health care, and subsidized onsite day care. Why? Because the stress and workloads are not worth it. You can set up massage and watering stations at each mile of a Marathon course, but it's still a painful grueling Marathon.

What is the egg freezing signaling? A cynic (like me) would conclude that Apple/FB wants its women to fully focus on work (and work super hard) during their fertile younger years (~25-35). Just like their concierge and commute benefits, this is another way that workers don't have to be bothered by "real life", and can just stay in the work bubble thinking about company goals and their career growth all the time (you know, the truly important things in life). They are all about hacking and disrupting everything, so why can't they disrupt family planning too? Who says you can't have it all as a working mom?

But here's the thing, we know that it's illegal for employers to ask about or discriminate based on family. When a worker decides to start a family, often their career trajectory changes permanently, and managers may subtly or overtly perceive them differently from then on. It's only natural. So the egg freezing is a form of insurance, if you will. Those firms hired supposedly child-less younger women. They may be in relationships, but they will mostly be available for the firm 50-80 hrs/week and ~49 weeks/year. That is what the company expects when it hires. So the egg benefit prolongs that arrangement, for a measly sum of $20K (compare that to 1-6 months mat-leave, and all the lost productivity from childcare responsibilities, illnesses, etc. thereafter). And later when the egg freezer decides to finally start a family, the company can marginalize her to a lesser role, eventually replacing her with a man/new young woman. She's already contributed her value to the firm, now she can "go to pasture" and be a mom at Yahoo or Intel.

I could be underestimating Si Valley snobbery, but I think the # of women who will use this benefit will be small, and the # of women thawing their eggs later to start a family even smaller. Biologically, it's more likely they will have kids naturally. But for those who do choose to freeze and have a family via IVF, it won't be a cake walk either. Success rates are under 20% per egg. The mom might be 35-45 at that point. The older you get, the harder it is to deal with the physical strains of motherhood (unless they plan to nanny everything like Marisa Meyer). And by then they would be mid-career, with even more responsibilities and stress vs. their 20's. So is that a better time to start a family? Sure they'll be richer, but it may also be harder to transition from office rock-star to working mommy. So is the egg benefit just a scam from Apple and FB, tricking talented younger women to postpone their family plans to their detriment? And I don't know if there is data on it, but I wonder if child outcomes are different when the parents are older or younger. Of course teen parents are not preferable either, but I wonder if there is such a thing as "too old". Kids will still need their parents when they are 20-30, and it's just harder when they are geriatric by then. 

Lastly, what about the whole cryo-egg/IVF approach? Obviously it is not an option for most women, and is generally monopolized by wealthier white/Asian people (which tech is too). Will this further the rich-poor & racial gaps? Older pregnancies are a larger health risk for both mother and child. One option is a surrogate mom (pay a younger, poorer lady to carry your fetus - she's just renting out her excess capacity like AirBnB, right?). That is such a First World Problem: build vs. buy right? Outsource the non-value-add stuff, so you can focus on making money. Never compromise, innovate to have your cake and eat it too.

But it also reeks of exploitation. It's kind of sick - search for "surrogate mother" and you get a bunch of ads and sites trying to recruit wombs. Obviously demand > supply, especially with the rise of the Chinese upper class. And older couples who want to conceive will often pay any price. Those with medical need should have access to IVF, but what about those who elected to delay parenthood for their careers? That is kind of like paying to jump the line at Disneyland, or for organ donation. Clearly such procedures like IVF are not equal-opportunity, but the poor have the opposite problem - they sometime have too many kids because of lack of education and access to affordable contraception (as we discussed previously during the Hobby Lobby ruling).

There is even "surrogacy tourism" where Western couples lease a Third World womb (really, are they that cheap that they have to offshore it?). A case in Thailand made the headlines because an AUS couple may have "abandoned" one of their twins after discovering he had Down's (they left him with the surrogate Thai mom and returned home with the "desirable" twin). This is just one incident, but you can imagine the ethical and legal minefield that surrogacy presents.

All the sci-fi stuff from our childhood like Brave New World and Gattaca seem to be getting too close for comfort. Those in the "elite" class get all the privileges and get to lead charmed lives (yes, you can have it all when you work for Apple/FB!), and the rest of humanity just serves them, with the narrow/false hope of joining their ranks some day.

-----

This may also be a symptom of the competitiveness of silicon valley.  What else can you offer once money, food, on site massage, etc is covered?  The incentives are only going to get weirder at this point.

-----

I agree that there is an "arms race" re: employee benefits to attract good talent, but remember that Google, Apple, and maybe some others got sued for anti-competitive practices (no engineer poaching collusion to keep comp in check), but FB was not involved. So I guess several forces are affecting benefits. Supposedly US raises are being depressed by the rising costs of health coverage too.

If you took a poll at Apple on what new/enhanced benefits the workforce really wants, I doubt that egg freezing would be high on the list. I think it was a pet project by some HR person to "be innovative" and make some news. I assume the workforce really wants (1) more pay, (2) more vacation (true vacation, as in totally unplugged time), (3) more flex time, and (4) more coaching/training/career dev, not necessarily in that order. But most employers won't budge on that stuff. Speaking of vacation, some companies like Netflix offer unlimited paid vacation. But as you can imagine, this could have the opposite effect (workers scared to ask for a lot of time off, and without a vacation stipend, the firm saves money by not paying out unused balance).

There are some "nefarious benefits" that actually benefit the firm more than the worker. Like offering free dinner - that could encourage workers to stay later (with no OT pay) and the company gets a little more productivity out of them (even if they goof off much of that time). It got so bad at EA that workers sued to reclaim OT and become hourly workers, so at least they get comped for their longer hours. So I think the egg freezing is part of that - it delays family life, which benefits the company possibly at the expense of the worker. 

Hobby Lobby ruling and contraception

Considering the Court's makeup, it was expected. It won't help the GOP win over more young women. I guess corporations continue to enjoy most individual rights but avoid many of the responsibilities/punishments.

"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."

-Ginsburg dissenting opinion

----

I suppose it's not surprising, but it still sucks. Ginsburg wrote a great dissent though, for whatever that's worth. 

What's funny about the ruling is that the prevailing opinion seems to want to restrict the ruling, by applying it only to "closely-held corporations with strong religious beliefs" but that can still apply to a significant number of companies with numerous employees. For example, the Mars corporation would qualify, especially because there is no test to be administered for "strong religious beliefs" so any company can essentially claim they have those. The funny bit (to me anyway) is that I get the impression that they thought there were being restrained in their conservatism with this ruling. As if they were saying "no no it's not all corporations who can deny you birth control coverage, just these certain ones!"

----

I get his once we assume their freedom if religion was infringed RFRA says the gov must attempt to accommodate.

But how is the offer of health insurance that includes birth control legally distinguished from a paycheck that pays for an abortion?  Aren't both compensation which are offered at the discretion of the employer? 

I think I saw it mentioned somewhere that hobby lobby covered birth control etc prior to the aca apparently without issue.

----

I actually had the same thought about their paychecks. Ginsburg had a great line about how if it's against someone's religion then I guess they don't have to follow any laws they don't want to.

In fact, I would recommend this article: http://gawker.com/a-treasury-of-justice-ginsburgs-real-talk-in-her-hobby-1598003837

Which pulls out some of Ginsburg's greatest hits on this ruling.

----

http://www.npr.org/2014/06/30/327071978/how-many-companies-will-be-touched-by-courts-contraception-ruling?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20140701

Thx for the comments and links, guys. Yeah as you said, the majority opinion claimed that they were being really restrictive as to which org's this ruling could apply to, but really the language was anything but. NPR estimates that 90% of businesses are "closely held" (employing >50% of our workforce),  as in 5 or fewer individuals own more than half the firm value (IRS definition). Maybe this is an example why political appointees/Beltway lifers without much experience in the "real world" may not be the best candidates for a lifetime SC appointment where US society is literally at their mercy. And the ACA already exempted religious nonprofits and small businesses from covering contraception, so that is millions more Americans.




http://ocsotc.org/


In school I worked on a business case (similar to the link above) advocating that oral contraception should be available over-the-counter. It's really a no-brainer, and that's how it works in Catholic Mexico and other nations. This has been discussed for years, but the understaffed and political football FDA has yet to act. "Plan B" (the morning-after pill) is available no-questions-asked after a pharmacist consultation, but it's more expensive and doesn't reduce menstrual symptoms (also I believe there is some controversy as to what age range it is available to). Now, women can only get the pill after a yearly or quarterly visit to their OB-GYN, and awkward pelvic exams are often mandated prior to giving out an Rx. This is obviously time consuming and expensive, esp. if the patient doesn't have coverage.




Sure, I can imagine that drug companies may lose $ if the pill goes OTC and is subject to generic competition and market price pressures (like most other products!), and I guess OB-GYNs may stand to lose business too (some legitimately care and it's their medical opinion that regular exams are the best thing for their patients - so they need to link it to the pill Rx in order to get women to comply). But most major health org's worldwide say the OTC pill is an overwhelming improvement with very little downside (except for right wing Christian ire I suppose). And we are just talking about decades-old, well-validated, super-safe, cheap basic hormone pills. The fancy next-gen stuff can still be Rx for consumers who want it. Unintended pregnancies and menstrual symptoms are a huge cost on societies, and disproportionately affect women. So is that the problem - women have most of the responsibility and incur the suffering, but the men are writing the laws and enjoying the pleasure of sex without the consequences? Since there is practically zero medical/sociological/economic evidence to support the restriction of contraceptives, I can only assume that this is another manifestation of the "war on women". Conservatives claim to love freedom and liberty, but have this fixation to try to control female behavior. It's really bizarre. Maybe we can take them at their word and it's all about religious values and "morality". If so, then why don't they pony up and pay more taxes to help all the unintended mothers raise those kids? The US is probably the most hostile developed economy for working mothers - so how about changing those laws and norms first, and then you can restrict contraception coverage as much as you want.  


----

For the 4th, here is a disturbing story that hasn't got much coverage: the US accepts non-citizens into its Armed Forces (often with the "promise" of citizenship at honorable discharge), but if those vets are caught in a crime (even a petty one like DUI or financial fraud) - the laws of the land require automatic deportation. Maybe deportation is justified for some crimes, but there has to be exceptions or at least a review process for non-citizen vets who served faithfully for years and got caught in one mistake. It's like the penal system in general - how can we claim to be civilized people, yet we judge and label criminals by the worst moment of their lives? Someone could be a productive worker and loving parent, son, brother, and neighbor for 99% of his life, but once they are in prison, they are henceforth known as "robber" or "drug user".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6rjCvgRkq0

----

And lastly, on the lighter side of things, the Daily Show mocks bourgeois liberals for their stupidity/narrow-mindedness too!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/13/google-glass-daily-show_n_5491565.html

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/03/the_daily_show_anti_vaxxers_are_the_climate_denying_nutjobs_of_the_left/

 

Gender differences among white collar criminals

This was interesting though not surprising (but it's good to put #s to our suspicions).

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/08/05/even-in-white-collar-crime-female-crooks-face-a-glass-ceiling/

This Penn St. study looked at 83 fraud cases from last decade involving over 400 defendants. As you would expect, women made up only 9% of the defendant pool, so not sure if that was enough to make statistical conclusions. But half of the male defendants gained >$500K from their alleged frauds, while half of the female defendants earned nothing. The women were more often in lower subordinate job titles too vs. their male co-conspirators.

Females were more likely to occupy accounting/finance positions, and were not the "ringleaders" or creative force behind the crime. Their crimes were less likely to be personal profiteering, and instead they were accused of embellishing #s to make the firm look better or covering up losses to avoid bankruptcy. So they were doing wrong while "trying to help someone else", whereas the men were straight up stealing for themselves (and maybe making their firms some $ too).

Interesting interview with Sheryl Sandberg on her recent book about working women

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/11/173740524/lean-in-facebooks-sheryl-sandberg-explains-whats-holding-women-back

Book review: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/books/sheryl-sandbergs-lean-in.html?_r=0

Some opinions about her: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-facebook-sheryl-sandberg-deserves-respect-20130306,0,6928927.story

In general, I think it's not that effective when a super-successful outlier person tells everyone else, "You can be like me." Same goes for books from Obama, Jack Welch, etc. I know Sandberg isn't saying that explicitly, but she is a role model. Sandberg is an amazing story, but got a lot of help and special opportunities (and luck) along the way. Most working women will find themselves under more constraints, even if they are as sharp as Sandberg. I like the part of Sandberg's message that women shouldn't be their own worst enemy and limit themselves from their own fears. If you have a problem with something, stand up and do something about it. I think that advice applies to a lot of men too. All around us are messages and influences that say, "You can't do this, you can't do that, don't stick your neck out, just play it safe." But sometime they're right, because there isn't a 2nd chance if we take the wrong risk. And generally women have less room for error (partly due to our sexist culture). What about all the other Sandberg types who didn't make it big - maybe accidentally pissed off a boss or got pregnant at the "wrong time" or picked a bad company along the way? They had just as much potential and worked just as hard, but the truth is we often don't have much control of our destinies - even in the "meritocracy" of Silicon Valley.

To me, the irony of her message is that all the "bad" habits that Sandberg says women practice that hold them back (being humble & compromising, seeking out a mentor, second guessing - which gets a bad rap but often times saves one from a mistake!), are actually good working (and life) behaviors! Remember how Bush was seen as so much more "decisive" and "bold" than Kerry or Gore? Hitler was decisive and bold too (not implying parity among those leaders!). We know women are generally better human beings than men. It's just that the asshole men that tend to run the world don't do those civil things and take advantage/dismiss people who do. So once again, it's not "passive women" who are the problem, but ultra-aggressive/selfish/

greedy/sociopathic men and their contrived, dysfunctional professional culture. Similar to our previous emails, when it's too daunting to take on the assholes and try to change them, then the alternative (Sandberg's message) is "join 'em". I know that isn't exactly her thesis, but clearly she's not asking men to tone it down and act more "womanly." Heck Sandberg probably knows how to be a man more than I do. I am sure she understands men's contribution to the problem, though as a strong successful woman, it's unappealing to be a cliche: acting the victim and "blaming men", even if it's mostly accurate. Both sexes play a role, but instead of urging women to get more assertive, why doesn't she urge a change in workplace culture (like the Harvard article on civility) to accept and reward courteous, sensible, work-life balance women who also have great things to contribute? Why can't we figure out how to tap that resource, instead of forcing everyone to confirm to ghastly, male work expectations?

Election comments

First of all, weed in WA and CO!!! http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pn-marijuana-votes-20121106,0,3992024.story?track=rss

I'll just comment on the election and politics here, not necessarily on the merits of each party's philosophies and policy agendas.

I can't remember the last time I felt so proud of the American people. Personally, I think this is bigger than 2008 considering the current political environment. Voters rejected the GOP's schizophrenic candidate, as well as their policies of exclusion, obstruction, wealth/power inequality, obsolete beliefs, and scapegoating the wrong people for America's problems.

And ironically, the electoral college is now working in the Dem's favor! Romney almost won the popular vote but got wiped out in electoral votes. But now there are "structural" advantages for the Dems in terms of electoral vote distributions, similar to what the GOP enjoyed from Nixon to Bush Sr.

We worried that Cit. Utd. would change politics forever, and I do believe it had a noticeable effect. But Obama's campaign is the most sophisticated and effective grassroots, micro-donation, new media machine we've ever seen (and it's a platform that they can hopefully transfer to future candidates and continue to have an advantage vs. the GOP on). In the end, that beat out the Adelson, Koch, Trump, and Rove led money and misinformation blitz. Outside groups have to pay a higher fee for TV ads than campaigns, so $1 of money raised by Obama2012 equaled about $1.50-2.00 of Super PAC money. So once again, the GOP miscalculated. Everyone (but Nate Silver) predicted that the young people, poor, and minorities (who turned out in record numbers for Obama in 2008) are now disillusioned and unlikely to show up for Obama like that again. Well they did, and even more so for Latinos. 

But still, about as many people voted for Romney as Obama. A lot of white males, older folks, and the wealthy. Maybe the GOP will realize that America is not like "Leave it to Beaver" anymore and those groups are not enough to guarantee a win each time, but I doubt it. They chose Ryan over Rubio or a woman (and he didn't even deliver WI). Well, the Ryan pick was kind of forced by the nomination of Romney - clearly not the GOP's first choice. I guess Christie wanted to wait until Obama was termed out to give it a shot, probably a smart move. 

So did the "core strengths" of the GOP actually cause them to lose here? It gained them money but cost them votes, and fortunately votes still determine our leaders. The Tea Party, ties to big business, and pro-Israel lobby became liabilities. Most Americans do not feel directly threatened by Iran, do not believe that Israel will be attacked any time soon, and care more about domestic issues. Our foreign policy is far from comfortable, but Osama is dead, America is tired of war, and the focus on these narrow issues to placate their big donors and the hawks didn't persuade many voters who weren't already sure votes for Romney.

How about big business? A private equity mega-millionaire who outsourced jobs to China and didn't support the auto bailout may not be the most convincing messenger for the conservative solution to economic growth. Despite the latent displeasure with Obama over the economy, the "supply side" argument didn't gain traction among non-core GOP voters. And it's not really a great strategy to persuade disillusioned independents and liberals to vote for you when you accuse half the country of being lazy bozos with their hands out (the veterans, elderly, marginalized?), and when you accuse a key growth demographic (Latinos) of stealing jobs and undermining our recovery. 

And then there's the Tea Party. They energized the GOP and thumped the Dems in 2010, but became a liability now. The are too regressive, intolerant, exclusive, and hateful - just not very pleasant people you want to associate with. A lot of presidential elections is about getting casual or infrequent voters out for you. These folks have more centrist, timid views - which is of course anathema to the TP. They aren't winning friends and turning off a lot of key voters with stuff like:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/07/opinion/friedman-hope-and-change-part-two.html?ref=opinion&_r=0