Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
gwyn, this link addresses the specifics of what you are suggesting. I'll clip to address your argument (bolded).
MARRIED men make more money than single men.
...
The question is why.
There are two broad classes of explanation. One view holds that marriage causes men to receive higher wages. The other view is that higher wages are simply correlated with, but not caused by, marital status.
...
Perhaps women are attracted to stable, hardworking men. Employers also find such men attractive, so they want to hire and promote them. If true, we would see married men having higher wages. But it isn't that marriage caused those higher wages - rather, the same things that caused marriage caused the higher wages.
Such a correlation could also arise from irrelevant characteristics. Maybe women prefer good-looking guys, and employers also like handsome men, even when appearance has nothing to do with job productivity.In this case we would also observe that the same men who are more likely to be married are also more likely to be employed and have higher wages. Its fundamental to the seduction community as well where they change the same man into a hot item just by attitude, posture and bluff.
In the correlation explanations of the marriage premium, the same factors that caused the men to marry caused them to get higher wages - but there is no direct causal link between marriage and high wages.
...
Recently two economists, Kate Antonovics and Robert Town of the University of California, San Diego and the University of Minnesota, respectively, have come up with a clever way to decide between the causal and the correlation theories.
...
Their approach is based on looking at monozygotic, or identical, twins. The authors argue that twins have the same genetic endowment and (usually) the same upbringing. Since twins have the same underlying physical and mental capabilities, they should have similar productivity. Even if employers are biased toward certain irrelevant characteristics, monozygotic twins should be affected by such biases equally.
Hence differences in wages between married and unmarried twins should control for most of the effects that might cause a spurious marriage-wage correlation. If a married twin has a higher wage than his single brother, the difference is probably caused by marriage, not just correlated with it.
...
Consistent with other studies, they found a significant marriage premium: controlling for education, age and other variables, the married men in their sample earned about 19 percent more than unmarried men.
They then examined just the wage differences between twins, while still controlling for education. They found that married twins had 26 percent higher wages than their unmarried siblings. Hence, even among very similar men, those who are married earn substantially more.
This result suggests that marriage really does have a causal impact on wages. Of course, it is not conclusive. After all, maybe the married twin really is different in some way from his brother, and that difference is important to both potential spouses and employers. Still, it is suggestive evidence. The New York Times > Business > Economic Scene: Analyzing the Marriage Gap
Hi Braunwyn,
Nonsense. Women are perfectly capable of detecting potential clues subtle or not so subtle environmental influences working on men. Even the same man at different times in his life. A twin who forgot to study for a test and failed will not have the gleam in their eye that day. I know when I succeed, I am more cocky. Marriage may show influence and motivation but no way is that the only effect at work here.
This is fundamental stuff. Women like men who show promise and try to marry them. I don't care how may Greek philosophers try to split a zygote.
Addendum:
I am the only one mounting a proper defense that would swindle women into thinking that settles the wage gap. Am I not the cruel nasty gwynedd that would gladly hand feminists a rubber nickle? I am the best feminist in the room right now and it does me proud I am telling you.
Its all of the above. Think dynamically. Men know something about their potential as do women also guess right more often than they guess wrong about a man's potential. The best men tend to find mates. The best men tend to succeed more often. Again, I applaud the choosiness of women. If women did not care who sired their children, I would be a worm.
Its drop dead simple. The men women like, show traits that are linked to success in other areas of life.
Having a lot of potential is great. Having no desire to fulfill that potential is even better.
Just so you know, I'm simply quoting the links provided by gwyn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
I agree that married men are more motivated, but I also think there is a mild element of bias at work. Often an emotional factor in "who to fire" or "who to promote" is: "does he have a wife and kids to support?"
You also have a perception that the single man is more volatile, more likely to quit for greener pastures, whereas the married man is potentially anchored by his wife's career, his kids' schooling and social lives, and trappings that go along with a family (a mortgage, for example). I personally believe that this becomes a significant factor when you're talking about higher level managment.
That's quite possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
Hi Brauwn,
Its all of the above. Think dynamically. Men know something about their potential as do women also guess right more often than they guess wrong about a man's potential. The best men tend to find mates. The best men tend to succeed more often. Again, I applaud the choosiness of women. If women did not care who sired their children, I would be a worm.
Um, lets not move the goal posts, gwyn. You stated..."Its well known men start families when they have financial security and women tend to marry them"
Lets not bring potential into the equation and contend with what we have. Again, it's not well known that men start families when they have financial security. The argument that married men earn more than their single counter parts as evidence of why they marry is lacking in logic. At best, you're trying to make, even force, the data to fit your hypothesis and sometimes it just doesn't work out.
Quote:
Its drop dead simple. The men women like, show traits that are linked to success in other areas of life.
Gwyn, I'm not saying you're wrong or right. What's clear is that the data is not backing you up. What you are providing as evidence (the two links) in no way supports your assertion. The link I provided actually argues against it and quite reasonably so. What's drop dead simple is the illusion of everything appearing as a nail when we're holding a hammer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
Hi Braunwyn,
Nonsense.
The study is nonsense? The entire thing is copy/paste just so you know. What part of the study do you take issue with? I think it was a great idea.
Quote:
Women are perfectly capable of detecting potential clues subtle or not so subtle environmental influences working on men. Even the same man at different times in his life. A twin who forgot to study for a test and failed will not have the gleam in their eye that day. I know when I succeed I am more cocky. Marriage may show influence and motivation but no way is that the only effect at work here.
This is fundamental stuff. Women like men who show promise and try to marry them. I don't care how may Greek philosophers try to split a zygote.
You can sing this until the cows come home, but you have in no way provided a reasonable argument for it. And your interpreation is no more meaningful than attributing the FSM or whatever tale. Again, that doesn't mean you are wrong, to be clear, it's just that talking and pondering the yonder about your preferences is not something that can be generalized.
Quote:
Addendum:
I am the only one mounting a proper defense that would swindle women into thinking that settles the wage gap. Am I not the cruel nasty gwynedd that would gladly hand feminists a rubber nickle? I am the best feminist in the room right now and it does me proud I am telling you.
Regarding the marrige gap when it comes to earnings, it's probably both causal and correlation. After all, a woman seeks resources in a man and thus will look for a man who either has those resources or the potential to earn them. (Yes, I'm aware that the "experts" say that the change occurs after marriage but I don't listen to them because most have a point to prove or cause to champion. For example the "study" that showed that the living standards of men go up after divorce while those of women and children go down was shown to have manipulated data).
Once married, a man will have greater responsibilities and thus a need to earn more money, as well as possibly a spouse who might nag him to make more money or earnestly supports him so he can focus on income, or none of the above. In either case though, a man is being forced to work longer/harder to support these new responsibilities which begs the question: is this truly a good thing?
Sure, he has more money but much of that money is earmarked for new expenses that may not bring him happiness, joy, or an increase in a standard of living. The house is bigger but it's more crowded with a spouse and children. He has a second car payment for his wife's car yet he can only drive one car at a time. He must now fund his childrens' educations, etc, etc...
So, in the end, a married man is working longer hours, a greater number of years, possibly experiencing greater stress, and sacrificing a higher percentage of his income. None of this burden is being expressed when people try to sell that marriage is good for men because they tend to have higher incomes.
It is not what you earn, it's what you keep. If a single man earns less but needs less and is able to save more (either a total amount or percentage) than a married man, than I would venture to claim that the single man is the wealthier of the two and better off. Personally, because I have a high income and lack a spouse and children, I am able to save to tremendous amount of money. Retirement at 50 is possible, certainly at 55. Compare that to the married man who works himself into an early grave to support a larger home, children's education, spouse's demands, etc... so he might have a few years of retirement before he drops from the pressures he put on his body.
And, of course, the report not only avoids commenting on marriage but actually deliberately hides it. In some studies, when they report single vs married, they roll into the single category men who have been divorced for a certain period of time (often a year). Clearly, marriage and the resulting devestating effects of a divorce wounded their finances tremendously yet that is hidden away and instead attributed to their singleness. Far more accurate would be "never married" vs married. But you won't see that because the powers that be don't want word getting around that marriage may not be all that. Need a new generation of tax payers and worker bees after all.
Regarding the marrige gap when it comes to earnings, it's probably both causal and correlation. After all, a woman seeks resources in a man and thus will look for a man who either has those resources or the potential to earn them. (Yes, I'm aware that the "experts" say that the change occurs after marriage but I don't listen to them because most have a point to prove or cause to champion. For example the "study" that showed that the living standards of men go up after divorce while those of women and children go down was shown to have manipulated data).
Once married, a man will have greater responsibilities and thus a need to earn more money, as well as possibly a spouse who might nag him to make more money or earnestly supports him so he can focus on income, or none of the above. In either case though, a man is being forced to work longer/harder to support these new responsibilities which begs the question: is this truly a good thing?
Sure, he has more money but much of that money is earmarked for new expenses that may not bring him happiness, joy, or an increase in a standard of living. The house is bigger but it's more crowded with a spouse and children. He has a second car payment for his wife's car yet he can only drive one car at a time. He must now fund his childrens' educations, etc, etc...
So, in the end, a married man is working longer hours, a greater number of years, possibly experiencing greater stress, and sacrificing a higher percentage of his income. None of this burden is being expressed when people try to sell that marriage is good for men because they tend to have higher incomes.
It is not what you earn, it's what you keep. If a single man earns less but needs less and is able to save more (either a total amount or percentage) than a married man, than I would venture to claim that the single man is the wealthier of the two and better off. Personally, because I have a high income and lack a spouse and children, I am able to save to tremendous amount of money. Retirement at 50 is possible, certainly at 55. Compare that to the married man who works himself into an early grave to support a larger home, children's education, spouse's demands, etc... so he might have a few years of retirement before he drops from the pressures he put on his body.
And, of course, the report not only avoids commenting on marriage but actually deliberately hides it. In some studies, when they report single vs married, they roll into the single category men who have been divorced for a certain period of time (often a year). Clearly, marriage and the resulting devestating effects of a divorce wounded their finances tremendously yet that is hidden away and instead attributed to their singleness. Far more accurate would be "never married" vs married. But you won't see that because the powers that be don't want word getting around that marriage may not be all that. Need a new generation of tax payers and worker bees after all.
It would be interesting to see a study of assets, investments, and income for married, single and divorced men and women. I had the same thought that married men's income might be higher because they have more expenses. Married women's income might be lower, especially if they stayed home with the kids for a period of time. The Economist had an article (Women in the workforce: Female power | The Economist) that showed there was almost no male:female income gap for women with no children.
What's with all the angry anti-woman sentiment on this board you ask?
Well it seems like our most vocal, woman-hating members are also members of this board where all they do is whine about what gold diggers women are and their "stinky holes".
What's with all the angry anti-woman sentiment on this board you ask?
Well it seems like our most vocal, woman-hating members are also members of this board where all they do is whine about what gold diggers women are and their "stinky holes".
Some of these males (I can't call them men) are quite a sad picture... I haven't been successful at marriage myself, but how anybody can be THAT bitter is beyond me! What baffles me is why in the world they keep discussing the subject... If women are that evil, why don't they just stay alone and quit whining about it?! If I hate something that much, I stop doing it, end of story. It's a pretty simple concept really.
Some of these males (I can't call them men) are quite a sad picture... I haven't been successful at marriage myself, but how anybody can be THAT bitter is beyond me! What baffles me is why in the world they keep discussing the subject... If women are that evil, why don't they just stay alone and quit whining about it?! If I hate something that much, I stop doing it, end of story. It's a pretty simple concept really.
I swear one of the days I am going to set up a secular version of a monastery and a nunnery so all the unhappy folks that hate the opposite sex can just retreat from society and keep each other company
I swear one of the days I am going to set up a secular version of a monastery and a nunnery so all the unhappy folks that hate the opposite sex can just retreat from society and keep each other company
And the most ridiculous part is most of them haven't even been married! Yet... they KNOW everything there is to know about marriage!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If women are that evil, why don't they just stay alone and quit whining about it?!
