Are Women Creating their Own Pay Gap?
I read with interest this article from MSN Money on how women may be sabotaging their salaries and pay by charging less for some services: "A new study finds female professionals lower their bills to maintain client relationships."
I have certainly found this true in psychology--I remember that even when I was looking for an internship that paid a reasonable rate, I was told that there were many students or post-docs willing to do the job for almost nothing-mainly, these were female students being supported by someone other than themselves. I balked at the pay and tried to set up something more lucrative but it was hard. Later, in practice, I found the same type of behavior where many of my colleagues were charging very little around my area or would not fight back when pay levels dropped with managed care etc. One of my colleagues, a male, just shook his head and said, "A PHD in psychology is a rich man's (or woman's) game." I think there is some truth to that. I now see my field as a hobby and take cases that are of interest but rarely for the money. I can make more doing almost anything else.
I think it is fine to care more about your relationship with clients than you do about money, but with that, comes the responsibility of realizing that you have chosen to do so and are willing to live with the results of your decision rather than blaming men and the rest of society for discrimination.
I have certainly found this true in psychology--I remember that even when I was looking for an internship that paid a reasonable rate, I was told that there were many students or post-docs willing to do the job for almost nothing-mainly, these were female students being supported by someone other than themselves. I balked at the pay and tried to set up something more lucrative but it was hard. Later, in practice, I found the same type of behavior where many of my colleagues were charging very little around my area or would not fight back when pay levels dropped with managed care etc. One of my colleagues, a male, just shook his head and said, "A PHD in psychology is a rich man's (or woman's) game." I think there is some truth to that. I now see my field as a hobby and take cases that are of interest but rarely for the money. I can make more doing almost anything else.
I think it is fine to care more about your relationship with clients than you do about money, but with that, comes the responsibility of realizing that you have chosen to do so and are willing to live with the results of your decision rather than blaming men and the rest of society for discrimination.
posted by Helen at 7:43 AM
34 Comments:
This is actually something businesses wrongly do all the time. Companies that are selling very similar products or services will often times differentiate on price, instead of on other aspects of their business which may be better than their competitors, like service or quality.
You end up with two companies who race to the bottom, and neither make money. The really successful companies are the ones who are able to maintain those relationships not through price, but by selling other aspects of themselves to their customers like technical support, service response times, etc.
Is there something about gender psychology that makes women less likely to attempt to do this than men? Does it have to do more with men tending to have more experience dealing with these things? Who knows.
So are you blaming men, or not? I certainly am. Bastards.
Students and post-docs are a cheap source of labor across the academic board, I wouldn't derive any sort of gender-based conclusion from that unless you could show it had nothing to do with the balance of the stock from which they are drawn.
Nick's valid point notwithstanding, are you sure the dropping of fees to keep clients isn't the result of excessive competition? Or, possibly, the "soft" nature of the, er, discipline? I mean, really, do we still seriously think that the average talk-therapy psychologist makes the slightest difference in real problems as opposed to invented or exaggerated problems? Most of the time, I think they probably make things worse. That probably means I've got some sort of personality problem, I suppose...
Psychology, like a lot of professions, is not one where you can hang out your shingle and expect to make serious money just by simply being there. One has to spend at least as much if not more time and energy cultivating client referral streams as one spends actually working with the clients. I would suspect --and I don't know it for a fact, but simply suspect-- that many women who go into psychology (and some men too) are put off by that fact when they come face to face with it, or they deny the truth of it. So rather than engaging in that referral-building activity, they do the easy thing, which is to slash their rates to attract clients. Then they complain about how "there's no money in this field."
John Doe,
I do live in a college town where there are a large number of PHD's, social workers etc. so there are plenty of therapists and certainly plenty of competition. I think that people in Tennessee do not buy into the "therapeutic mindset" as readily as northernors perhaps. This is probably a good thing as some therapies can make people worse and not better--i.e. marriage counseling. I do evaluations for courts who cap the amount of money that is to be paid--often regardless of how much work is involved. For example, a court tells me they have only 2000.00 for an evaluation but it might take me over 30 hours to complete, reducing my hourly rate. Insurance is another factor--rates here are about 70.00 per hour of patient time but a professional in private practice often has to spend another hour trying to get paid, filling out paperwork etc. plus paying overhead and/or someone to file and deal with the hassle.
One problem with my field, however, is that psychologists are not good lobbyists for their own rights so that more and more regulations are placed on us and our pay is lower and lower in private practice. Whether this is a function of the number of women in the field, I do not know. Perhaps it says more about the sadistic (yet secretly feeling inferior) personality of those in charge of the profession--they waste time on trivial matters like making sure psychologists take more and more Continuing Ed classes etc. while doing less to combat the lack of pay.
I guess the question I'm asking is tangential to the article in question and that is: does the pay of psychology reflect the usefulness of the practitioners? I'm not trying to troll here, but psychology has been around long enough now that we ought to be able to make some reasonable assessment of that.
Inicidentally, I am astonished that insurance cover should be $70 an hour. I interpret that to mean that psychologists are at risk for malpractice suits just as are medical practitioners. In which case, I am given to wonder how one proves malpractice with a, forgive me, shrink.
Back to the article, which I have now read more closely (yes, should have done that before), and I note the quote: "For women, their relationships with customers matter, their relationships with people they work with matter, and it doesn't seem to matter for men," [Gilly] said. "Men just price the same, regardless." I can see how one might derive the implication that personal relationships with customers matter less to a man than the integrity of his professional relationship and desire to avoid bias (is that not a better way to put it?), but to fold this in with the heavy implication that the men do not care about their associates is just not playing the game. I suspect that we're seeing just another foil for misandry here, rendering the whole thing very suspect.
I wonder if the question of security comes into it? The stereotype is that women prefer security over a potential high reward with a concurrent high risk. So perhaps female professionals on balance prefer the security of a steady stream of low-paying clients over the alternative: raising prices and having higher-paying but more erratic work?
I know it's a stereotype, but I've noticed it in my own career as a subcontractor. (I'm female.) I definitely prefer to be working constantly on lower-paying projects rather than holding out for the higher-paying contracts and risking having no work at all some weeks, even though I suspect over the course of the year I'd make the same amount either way. For what that's worth.
I'd need to see Prof. Gilly's study before accepting that the hypothetical price discrimination she'd observed is indicative of a stronger commitment to relationships. The fact that such motives are postulated for both high and low pricing by women ( the group vs. small practice scenarios) raises a flag IMO - it sounds like a rationalization after the fact.
Also, I hope that these statements are moderated by their original context..
"Women ... take into consideration their customers, and they take into consideration their associates," Gilly said.
"For women, their relationships with customers matter, their relationships with people they work with matter, and it doesn't seem to matter for men," she said. "Men just price the same, regardless."
----------
In fairness to Prof. Gilly it's quite possible that Reuters has framed her research according to their own biases.
This business world works according to the law of supply and demand. If the only person capable of doing a specific job charges a million dollars for that job, then that is what people will pay.
But, let's say, you make a better burrito than anyone else out there. You have a PhD from Burrito University. You go over to Taco Bell and tell them about your skillset and you want to charge $100.00 for every burrito you make, the Taco Bell manager is still going to hire Eduardo with his questionable Salvadorian visa to make burritos for minimum wage.
If you want to make the big bucks, become an Oracle DBA that can enunciate the english language. Otherwise, if there is somebody that will do your job for less money than you, expect prospective employers to hire them.
Dr. Helen, precisely why I'm actively looking for something more lucrative to do in my life after 60, and using my license for only something that interests me. No more full time practice as soon as I find something else. No more insurance reimbursement hassles, and excuse listening when they say the "check" is in the mail.
Besides, surviving cancer puts a whole new outlook on everything!!!
GM Roper,
I feel exactly the same way--after my heart attack, I figured, why the heck kill myself with the hassle of collecting checks that no one ever sends or that I have to spend an hour on the phone fighting with an insurance company or government agency over. It is not worth the rise in blood pressure and heart palpitations to do so! Every psychologist I know--even those who claim to "love their work" jumps at the chance to do something else if the oppotunity shows itself. One clinical PHD in our area is now the head of a window washing company and says he is much happier as a result.
"Every psychologist I know--even those who claim to "love their work" jumps at the chance to do something else if the oppotunity shows itself."
Same thing applies if you substitue "lawyer" for psychologist.
""For women, their relationships with customers matter, their relationships with people they work with matter, and it doesn't seem to matter for men,"
What a complete imbecile this writer is. She has obviously never been anywhere near the miltary, if she thinks men don't care about or know how to make relationships work. I wonder if there is anyone in the world she would trust her life to.
I didn't even bother to read the article because it had this in the by-line:"By MSN Staff with wire services." I regard the comments here, even the ones I disagree with, to be far more intelligent and rational. I frequently find that MSN publishes articles which trash men in one way or another, and the really annoying thing is that they: a) leave no evidence of who the author is, and b) provide no way of rebutting them. I guess this is just Bill and Melinda Gates' way of saying "it's our way or no way."
Rusty
Rusty,
Which is exactly the reason I am commenting and posting about such articles here so that they can be discussed--much of the MSM publishes trash about men that I believe is actively harmful as it is socially toxic and leaves many people who do not think much incorporating such nonsense into their way of thinking and thus, affects how men and boys are perceived (e.g. uncaring, etc.).
The study "analyzed" a mere 536 vets (out of 58k in the US), of which one third were women. I couldn't find numbers for gender breakdown in the US, but the Canadian gender breakdown suggests that the sample set should have had another 8% female. Furthermore, veterinary studies is one of those fields that has seen a dramatic gender shift in recent decades, so what was the age comparison between each gender? Were young women competing with older, established men with a long histories with their customers (established relationships that the article describes as undesireable to men).
But the real question to ask is this ... if the women found it _necessary_ to lower their rates in order to create those relationships, what is it about the services they offer, or the perception they cultivate in their customers, that make that financial consideration necessary? Giving a financial discount is the easiest, most simplistic way of establishing a business relationship ... but it is tenuous. Price discounts are the way you get someone in the door. A more persistent relationship is established by providing intangibles, giving the impression of incredible competence, fostering particular emotions or emotional attachments, or a multitude of other techniques that experienced, competent, and wise business owners recognize.
So what is this study really saying about businesswomen?
But I think we already knew that ;-) And I re-terate: it's much appreciated
Graham, hon, a wise man once said:
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
Life is way too short for unresolved anger.
Graham Strouse:
Anger can sometimes be a motivating force if used constructively. Anyway, I think that good people can and do rise to the top in their professions but most professions call for a great deal of conformitiy to their norms and resist differences--but it depends on how you are different.
Journalists, in order to rise to the top, seem to need a combination of luck, excellent persuasive skills and a left-leaning point of view that resonates with the audience that listens to them. But that is changing. For example, think of the hard road that John Stossel has had compared to say, Katy Couric, who to me, has the scrupples of the alley cat you described. But the John Stossels of the world are starting to make it and to do well. I also think it is more important to stay true to yourself and your beliefs than to do well at an industry, job etc. That is why I have less anger--I have made a conscious choice to live by what I think is right and not by what my profession dictates. But that is just me.
helen:
rusty (and others) say this article is trash--that much of what comes from MSN is man-hating trash. and you respond in seeming agreement. "which is exactly why i am commenting and posting"... you say. but your post and comments here have accepted the article as truth. because you see it as another opportunity to trash the female gender. "yeah, all this clamoring about making less money and it's their OWN DAMN FAULT" you seem to say. but others here have seen the other implications as anti-male. that men don't care about their customers.
you can't have it both ways. you can't tout the study and article as evidence of the responsibility of women for their own lack of financial equality and then say the whole thing is suspect because some people don't like the anti-male implications.
you know, you seem to give lip service to the ideal that equality for women doesn't require a concommitant diminution of respect for men. which is absolutely true. but then, you're like the pot calling the kettle black. why can't you see that not only is it not necessary to disrespect women but it positively hinders any effort to bring actual equality and respect between the sexes?
why would you be surprised that some feminists are angry about the past and have therefore lost respect for men when you seem to be engaging in the exact same mindset from the other side?
honestly, i think you are absolutely desperate for male approval.
andrea
Yes, yes, yes, Andrea, we all understand you need to deride Helen becasue she see men as being under attack. I'm sure you're still convinced that in any and all cases, women are all victims and men are all rapists.
But I'd encourage you to go back and read every article you can find published by MSN that addresses gender issues, and tally up the number that are supportive of the feminist POV versus the masculine POV.
I think, even with your anti-male bias, that you have to concede to yourself at least (perish the thought that you actually admit it here), that my distrust of the MSN editors on this basis is valid. The most annoying thing is that they express this bias as news, when it's actually commentary. They do this through story selection coupled with articles that are salted with subtle misandry embedded in their prose.
When I actually start to see that they're publishing a balanced set of viewpoints, then I'd be happy to change my position. But so far, Kim Gandy seems to have Bill Gates' testicles in a lockbox.
Rusty.
Helen
To state the obvious, the only reason that you can pursue your "hobby" is because you're married to a law professor who presumably makes a nice salary. How wonderfully convenient for you! Now how does this make you qualitatively (as opposed to quantitatively) different from the golddiggers that you were condeming a few days ago?
yes, yes, yes rusty. i see your deep-seeded need to argue and spew your propaganda is so strong that you will do so even where no argument exists.
dude, if you will re-read my post (this requires of course that you can both READ and COMPREHEND) you will see that i never denied that the article could be trash, that in fact perhaps everything from msn is trash. i don't know and i don't care.
my point was that helen was taking contradictory attitudes with respect to the article: assuming it to be truth insofar as it reflected poorly on women and then disputing its validity insofar as it reflected poorly on men.
the rest of your post (assuming anti-male bias on my part and references to rape) essentially leads me to believe you are an unbalanced individual. i said nothing at all to suggest that and i emphatically deny it. again if you will READ before you post, you will see that i was arguing for mutual respect and consideration between the sexes rather than a continuing battle of recriminations.
if you have some disagreement with that proposal, then it should be plain to any reader that YOU are the one with the problem.
Bobh:
I am not sure what is going on with your snarky attitude--I have seen other comments you have posted that show better taste so I assume this is a momentary lapse in judgement on your part. My financial situation is my own--I do not have to explain it here but apparently, you have taken it upon yourself to decide how I am living etc. You know nothing about my situation nor do I owe an explanation--but it is presumptuous of you to assume I am living as a "golddigger." It is downright rude--cut it out.
oh dear, someone seems to have hit on a sore point.
there's nothing more annoying than self-important bloggers who think all their opinions are so interesting and simply must share them with the world, but who get all bent out of shape when their personal matters (and personal hypocrisies) are pointed out.
look, other people have opinions too. other peope are smart and informed too. but they don't feel the need to broadcast this stuff. they discuss with friends and family. if you can't stand the criticism, i recommend sticking to that format, where the people love you and wont point out that you're a hypocrite.
otherwise, bobh is right. you complain about women being lazy, expecting their men to provide for them and yet you don't work. (fyi, the occasional appointment is not what is paying the bills around there.)
If I were incapable of distinguishing between such simple things as the difference between the fact of not being employed full-time and the intention and effort of pursuing a person in order to parasitically live off of their productivity, I really wouldn't announce it on the Internet.
But that's just me, apparently.
Well, i consider myslef an uber-feminist, but Dr. Helen has a point here. I work in an environment which is entirely female staffed, and I often think the reason is because men would never tolerate such low salaries. The work is grueling but high status, and meanwhile we all have husbands at home who are the bread winners. Doesn't seem like the kind of situation Betty Freidan was fighting for.
Alex
theophany:
those with "the intention and effort of pursuing a person in order to parasitically live off of their productivity" rarely believe or at least admit to such intentions.
you think you can read minds?
what i know is the woman chooses not to support herself or her family and then rails about women using men, while simultaneously claiming she's so very different from other women.
i'm all for "criticize the message, not the messenger", but this is not a case of argumentum ad hominem. the subject of the personal criticism is the same subject of the messenger's own criticism. it is then, you see, not off point.
it would be like, say, a supposed liberal looking for an "open-minded" room-mate but then insisting the applicant not be republican, male, a meat-eater, etc. in such a case, you all here seem perfectly willing to "contest the messenger". and well you should, because the messenger is a hypocrite.
Anonymous 3:24:
Look Greg K.--please stop trolling my blog with your "anonymous" posts.
Hm. Not Greg K. Not "trolling". Talking about topics you bring up--only as it relates to your own behavior.
You going to stop blogging? If not, I'm not going to stop commenting.
It's all fun and games,isn't it? Ripping other people, either individually or by making massive overgeneralizations about groups. Until someone brings it home to your doorstep. Then all of a sudden, all you have to say is "Shut up" or "Go away".
Interesting. And so much for tolerance.
Andrea
She's not Greg Kuperberg. She's "a female attorney!"
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
日本a片av383 倉井空免費影片080aa片aa免費倉井空影片禁忌書屋成人小說網85cc成人片 西洋片視訊交友 百分百成人圖片微風論壇咆哮55123電玩快打小遊戲米克綜合論壇玩美女人影音秀美女交友av美女美女寫真免費a片卡通影音視訊聊天室080xxx383美女寫真玩美女人免費線上成人影片6k聊天室
Post a Comment
<< Home