Ram Posted September 24, 2008 Posted September 24, 2008 Men who grow up thinking women should stay at home may be labelled "old-fashioned" - but could end up well ahead in the salary stakes. A US study, published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, suggests that they will consistently out-earn more "modern-thinking" men. On average, this meant an extra $8,500 (£4,722) a year. One UK psychologist said men inclined to wield power in their relationships might also do this at work The study, carried out by researchers at the University of Florida, was conducted on a large scale, with 12,686 men and women interviewed in 1979, when they were aged between 14 and 22, and three times in the following two decades, the last time in 2005. The researchers asked them whether they believed a woman's place was in the home, or whether the employment of women was likely to lead to higher rates of juvenile delinquency. Predictably, more men tended to hold these views than women, although the gap has narrowed significantly over time. However, when the men were asked about their salaries, another gap emerged, with those holding "traditional" views earning significantly more. Conversely, women who held the opposite view did earn slightly more, on average $1,500 (£833) more than women with "traditional" views. Dr Timothy Judge, one of the researchers, said: "More traditional people may be seeking to preserve the historical separation of work and domestic roles - our results prove that is, in fact, the case." Dr Magdalena Zawisza, a psychologist from Winchester University, said that there were a number of theories which might explain the difference. She said: "It could be that more traditionally-minded men are interested in power, both in terms of access to resources - money in this case - and also in terms of a woman who is submissive. "Another theory suggests that employers are more likely to promote men who are the sole earner in preference to those who do not - they recognise that they need more support for their families, because they are the breadwinner." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7625173.stm --------------------- Interesting..
Lurker Posted September 24, 2008 Posted September 24, 2008 Men who grow up thinking women should stay at home may be labelled "old-fashioned" - but could end up well ahead in the salary stakes. Very interesting article Sriram, and frankly it doesnt surprise me a bit, although I wish it was not the case. Some of the richest folks are Conservative in philosphy. You can pick a Conservative Indian or American, it wouldnt matter. Often these are very religious people, and religion by definition shall segregate between male and females. Yes a hardcore beleiver will start the debate that his religion doesnt do so but the truth remains Christianty spells woman was created out of man's ribs, Islam gives women a fraction of power men have, Hindus have had sati and so on. What conservativesm also means is that people tend to be fiscally more responsible. And ultimately people who are rich are also people who hold on their money due to this attribute. I say Conservativesm(philosphically, fiscally) = Wealth. xx
Ram Posted September 24, 2008 Author Posted September 24, 2008 I've always held this impression that you need a certain amount of ruthlessness to get to the top of whatever you're doing. Who knows, not being fair with the women in the house, vis-a-vis their careers is part of being ruthless.
punjabi_khota Posted September 24, 2008 Posted September 24, 2008 I've always held this impression that you need a certain amount of ruthlessness to get to the top of whatever you're doing. Who knows' date=' not being fair with the women in the house, vis-a-vis their careers is part of being ruthless.[/quote'] Maybe it is just that they marry a certain kind of woman or mold her so that she has to take most of the household responsibility, and that leaves him more time and energy for his work.
Ram Posted September 24, 2008 Author Posted September 24, 2008 Maybe it is just that they marry a certain kind of woman or mold her so that she has to take most of the household responsibility' date=' and that leaves him more time and energy for his work.[/quote'] Possibly. Thats a reasonable argument. Wife spending more time on household issues = Men having to spend less time on that = Men having more time to spend on careers = Higher salary.
triam Posted September 24, 2008 Posted September 24, 2008 Very interesting article Sriram, and frankly it doesnt surprise me a bit, although I wish it was not the case. Some of the richest folks are Conservative in philosphy. You can pick a Conservative Indian or American, it wouldnt matter. Often these are very religious people, and religion by definition shall segregate between male and females. Yes a hardcore beleiver will start the debate that his religion doesnt do so but the truth remains Christianty spells woman was created out of man's ribs, Islam gives women a fraction of power men have, Hindus have had sati and so on. What conservativesm also means is that people tend to be fiscally more responsible. And ultimately people who are rich are also people who hold on their money due to this attribute. I say Conservativesm(philosphically, fiscally) = Wealth. xx Hey Lurker, Cant someone be fiscally (economically) conservative and philosophically liberal?? I would thnk I am one of those types.
Lurker Posted September 24, 2008 Posted September 24, 2008 Hey Lurker, Cant someone be fiscally (economically) conservative and philosophically liberal?? I would thnk I am one of those types. Thats an interesting question Triam. I am personally along those lines as well - fiscal conservative and social liberal - however I must say that in most cases, and certainly in mine, it is an evolution of sorts. When you are social liberal you rarely are fiscally respnsible(specially when you are young) and it is only as years go by that you learn from experience and stop getting lot more responsible. However if you are social conservative you do tend to be more fiscal conservative. I mean how many religious orthodox people do you see splurge?? Sure they would spend here and there but an average social liberal will be having a party while social conservative would be putting his money to good use. Credit where its due - Conservatism has its pluses. :hatsoff: xxx
MarathaPride Posted September 25, 2008 Posted September 25, 2008 Hey Lurker, Cant someone be fiscally (economically) conservative and philosophically liberal?? I would thnk I am one of those types. You could be a member of the Libertarian Party. Bob Barr anyone?? :-D On topic, a study somewhere showed that if we valued the work of home-makers in $ terms, it would come out to be somewhere in the low six figure range. Thats quite a tidy sum!!
triam Posted September 25, 2008 Posted September 25, 2008 I identify a lottt with libertarian ideals, I think that it makes a lot of sense.
h4te Posted September 25, 2008 Posted September 25, 2008 i am the sexiest man i know, and i earn less than minimum wage............................:((
The Outsider Posted September 25, 2008 Posted September 25, 2008 i am the sexiest man i know' date=' and i earn less than minimum wage............................:(([/quote'] O' Rly?
CC1981 Posted September 26, 2008 Posted September 26, 2008 These kind of surveys are as interesting and informative as counting the stars in the sky...utterly irrelevant and as big a generalized and inaccurate statistics as it gets....someone should really pass a law that you can't use statistics or publish statistics unless you are qualified in the said field...so easy it is to abuse it with any type of dime-a-dozen survey, where we only have the 'word' of the surveyer that the sample space isnt fixed/pre-determined to drive a conclusion...i have very little time for such meaningless endavours.
Recommended Posts