Oof, the paper is tough to read. The default word formatting is not the best for tables.
I am wondering how marriage/relationship plays a role into career choices. I believe that people from privileged accounts are more likely to be in a stable relationship, which could (at least in part) explain why one partner can pursue a low-paying high-prestige profession while the other pursues a high-paying one.
When at least one is from privileged background they usually can both work lower paying jobs.
It's a lot easier to make a decent living out of it if you already own a house and your parents can act as a safety net in case unforseen huge expenses fall from the sky (e.g. if your parents total their car: you won't need to cover for them)
Idk how many women choose an engineer's career nowadays in Russia, but in Soviet times, the choice wasn't free. Talent was exploited like a natural resource. Perhaps some of it spills over to today, perhaps teaching is very poorly paid. Being an artist certainly is.
The American attitude since the late 80s seems to be summarized in the old quip: why be a physicist when you can be his boss?
The average woman would prefer to be a professor making $100k over a SWE making twice as much. Women value social prestige more highly than men, which is well understood in psychology.
We see men make money and women make friends, that is what we get in the statistics. Men sacrifice close connections to make money and women sacrifice money to make close connections.
> In comparison, women from these backgrounds were much more likely to go into teaching, or a creative profession—jobs which are well respected but substantially less financially rewarding.
…who respects teachers or creative profession careers? Genuinely asking. Teachers are ragged on all the time (“those who can’t do, teach”) and creative professions are often mocked as well in my high paying circles.
Are you sure? IT geeks are broadly understood to make bank, while professional artists get a lot of scoff as “so a barista?”. How much respect, genuinely, does a person who say does interior design for a living really get? In my experience, very little.
Every circle tends to mock people outside it - 'How could these other people not see that our path is the Way? Everyone I know agrees! These other people must be deficient, or else they surely would do what I do.'
Largely the same class of over credentialed idle rich. It's a very insular group, and they really only care about each other's opinions.
Values like these vary hugely group to group. For instance, journalists and academics think of themselves as very high prestige. Within their groups they are, and engineers and bankers aren't. The inverse is also true. It's part of the ongoing fragmentation of society.
It's well respected in the sense that when you're at a dinner party and tell people that you're a school teacher everybody says "Oh how nice! that's such an important job. You must love working with the kids, right? So rewarding to be able to make a difference"
Contrast when you tell somebody you're a lawyer or lobbyist, some people will be impressed but other people will get a bit uncomfortable and try to change the subject or start telling "lawyer jokes".
The best example is soldiers vs. mercenaries. Soldiers are highly regarded by society because society tells them they did an honorable thing because society didn't have to compensate them very well, and especially didn't have to compensate them enough to not go fight for some other society that treats them better.
Mercenaries on the other hand are not highly regarded because they are well compensated, and don't really care about the honor of fighting for some society that wants to pay them dirt.
Status is far cheaper to confer than money, so we make sure those willing to work for status are well compensated.
It is not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles.
This is news? I can recall family gossip from the 1960's or maybe 70's about $Cousin being paid $Dirt to teach at a very prestigious private school, because "that's how it works in New England".
And the economic/social pattern was probably centuries-old back then.
Women being allowed to work is hardly a centuries-old pattern.
edit: Given the comments and downvotes, perhaps it wasn't clear that I was speaking in the context of the article, which implies the ability to choose one's career. Women have "worked", but patriarchal society limited the work it would allow them to do. (and in most cases, essentially mandated they do certain types of work)
You're right, it's a millenia-old pattern at least. Women have been working for as long as we have recorded history, women not working is a modern luxury (technically it was an upper class luxury in premodern times).
Historically and today, a sought-after job for a young woman out of college who has majored in, say, English with wealthy parents is in publishing/media in NYC, with the parents paying the bills (publishing doesn't pay very much at the entry level). It's a genteel job that the parents can tell their friends about, and the daughter can meet suitable men; the classic marriage among these types has the husband working in finance and the wife in media.
Readit News
I am wondering how marriage/relationship plays a role into career choices. I believe that people from privileged accounts are more likely to be in a stable relationship, which could (at least in part) explain why one partner can pursue a low-paying high-prestige profession while the other pursues a high-paying one.
It's a lot easier to make a decent living out of it if you already own a house and your parents can act as a safety net in case unforseen huge expenses fall from the sky (e.g. if your parents total their car: you won't need to cover for them)
One of the greatest luxuries of resources is the ability to do whatever you want.
The American attitude since the late 80s seems to be summarized in the old quip: why be a physicist when you can be his boss?
Deleted Comment
…who respects teachers or creative profession careers? Genuinely asking. Teachers are ragged on all the time (“those who can’t do, teach”) and creative professions are often mocked as well in my high paying circles.
If your social circles go around mocking teachers, you should probably find a better social circle.
Deleted Comment
Every circle tends to mock people outside it - 'How could these other people not see that our path is the Way? Everyone I know agrees! These other people must be deficient, or else they surely would do what I do.'
IIRC teachers were included in the "heroes" group of people who kept things going during covid, no?
Values like these vary hugely group to group. For instance, journalists and academics think of themselves as very high prestige. Within their groups they are, and engineers and bankers aren't. The inverse is also true. It's part of the ongoing fragmentation of society.
When they want more pay or help/support, that is when people stop respecting them as much.
So they are respected when that respect is free to give out.
Deleted Comment
Contrast when you tell somebody you're a lawyer or lobbyist, some people will be impressed but other people will get a bit uncomfortable and try to change the subject or start telling "lawyer jokes".
What did the lawyer name his daughter? Sue!
Mercenaries on the other hand are not highly regarded because they are well compensated, and don't really care about the honor of fighting for some society that wants to pay them dirt.
Status is far cheaper to confer than money, so we make sure those willing to work for status are well compensated.
It is not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles.
Deleted Comment
And the economic/social pattern was probably centuries-old back then.
edit: Given the comments and downvotes, perhaps it wasn't clear that I was speaking in the context of the article, which implies the ability to choose one's career. Women have "worked", but patriarchal society limited the work it would allow them to do. (and in most cases, essentially mandated they do certain types of work)
Women have always worked. People need to stop using the 1% as representative of the whole population in History.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment