{"id":27,"date":"2020-02-11T10:39:22","date_gmt":"2020-02-11T10:39:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/people.socsci.tau.ac.il\/mu\/sigie\/findings\/"},"modified":"2023-09-07T12:35:10","modified_gmt":"2023-09-07T12:35:10","slug":"findings","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/people.socsci.tau.ac.il\/mu\/sigie\/findings\/","title":{"rendered":"Findings"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n \n
\n
<\/div>\n <\/section>\n
\n
\n

Selected Findings<\/h1>\n <\/div>\n <\/section>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/use><\/svg><\/circle><\/line><\/path><\/path><\/svg>\n \n \n <\/span>\n

Devaluation<\/h4>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n
<\/use><\/svg><\/circle><\/line><\/path><\/path><\/svg>\n \n \n <\/span>\n

Housework Division<\/h4>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n
<\/use><\/svg><\/circle><\/line><\/path><\/path><\/svg>\n \n \n <\/span>\n

RETURNS TO EDUCATION<\/h4>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/section>\n
\n
\n

DEVALUATION<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/section>\n
\n
\n

Using integrated data on individuals and occupations from the US Census (1960-2010) and the ACS surveys (2001-2015), the findings show, similarly to previous studies, that in recent decades, and especially from 1980 onwards, a growing number of women in the US have approached the head of the occupational ladder. This shift has been fuelled by women\u2019s growing educational attainments, which, together with the rising economic premium to education, have greatly contributed to the decline in gender wage gaps. Furthermore, based on these changes, the negative association between female percentage in occupations and occupational pay levels declines over time (see model 1 in the figure). This decline is most apparent from 1980 onward, a period in which US women witnessed a significant improvement in their occupational standing, and a period where occupations requiring higher education enjoyed a large wage premium. However, when examining the effect of gender composition of the occupation after accounting for women\u2019s higher education and for the level of education in occupations, the trend is reversed; the negative net effect of female percentage on occupational pay intensifies over time (see model 2 in the figure). These two opposite processes reflect the upward occupational mobility of women, on the one hand, and its gendered consequences, on the other hand.
\n
\n Mandel, Hadas. 2018.<\/font> A Second Look at the Process of Occupational Feminization and Pay Reduction in Occupations. Demography<\/i>, 55(2): 669-690.\n <\/font>\n
\n For the full article click here
\n <\/a>\n
\n <\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/section>\n

\n
\n

HOUSEWORK DIVISION<\/h2>\n \"\"\n

The paper explores cross-country\nvariation in the relationship between division of housework and wives\u2019 relative\neconomic contribution. We examined the effect of two contextual factors:\nwomen\u2019s labor force participation rate, which we link to economic exchange\ntheories; and gender ideology context, which we link to cultural theories.\nWhile economic exchange proponents assert that housework the division of\nhousework stems from a rational negotiation between the spouses, based on their\nrelative economic position cultural theories explains the division of labor\nbetween wives and husbands in terms of gender relations, manifested and\nreaffirmed by symbolic presentations of gender roles. In order to adjust to the\nprevailing cultural and social norms, working wives do most of the\nhousework\u2014even if the amount of time they invest in paid work and their\nrelative economic contribution is the same, or higher, than their husbands. 
Our findings show that in line with\neconomic-based theories, economic exchange between housework and paid work\noccurs in all countries\u2014but only in households which follow normative gender\nroles. However, and consistent with the cultural-based theory, wives undertake\nmore housework than their spouses in all countries\u2014even if they are the main or\nsole breadwinners. And yet, cross country variation noticeable and highly\nrelated to the ideological context of the country. That is, the universal\ngendered division of housework is significantly more salient in more\nconservative countries; as the context turns more conservative, the gender gap\nbecomes more pronounced, and the relationship between paid and unpaid work\nfurther removed from the economic logic. However, in gender-egalitarian\nsocieties women have more power in negotiating housework responsibilities in\nnon-normative gender role households. In contrast to gender ideology, the\ncross-country variations in women\u2019s labor participation did not follow the\nexpectations that derive from the economic exchange theory under which higher\nrates of women\u2019s labor participation should relate to a more egalitarian\ndivision of housework.
\n \n
Mandel, Hadas, Amit Lazarus and Maayan Shaby. 2020.\n <\/font> Economic Exchange or Gender Identities? Housework Division and Wives\u2019 Economic Dependency in Different Contexts. European Sociological Review<\/i>.\n <\/font>\n
\n For the full article click here<\/a>\n
\n <\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/section>\n

\n
\n

RETURNS TO EDUCATION<\/h2>\n \n

Panel a displays long-term trends in education premiums for\nmen and women, estimated by the conventional relative measure of returns to\neducation: the relative wage differences (in percentages) between workers with\nand without college education, by gender and year. The relative education\npremiums for both men and women grew considerably between 1980 and 2017, and until\nthe new millennium, women received higher relative education premiums than men.\nThis result is an indication of women\u2019s higher incentives to acquire higher\neducation. Panel b presents the absolute weekly wage gaps between more- and\nless-educated workers, by gender and year. The trend within each gender group\nis similar to that presented in panel a: the education premium is rising for\nboth groups but is increasing at a faster pace for men. That said, the gender\ngaps shown in panel b are markedly different from the equivalent gaps shown in\npanel a. First, the education premium in U.S. dollars is much higher for men\nthan for women at all time points. Second, men\u2019s advantage in education\npremiums has widened considerably over time.
For example, in 1980, the average wage of men with a college\ndegree surpassed the average wage of men with no college degree by 34%, whereas\nthe corresponding gap among women was 46%. The 46% gap between women with and\nwithout college education in 1980 equals $300 weekly, which is actually less\nthan the equivalent 34% education premium for men that equals $393 weekly. By\n2017, the education premium, in relative terms, had climbed to 70% for both men\nand women. This 70% premium has very different value for men and women because\nof women\u2019s lower starting point: it is worth about $785 for men but only $530\nfor women. Thus, whereas men\u2019s education premiums were higher than women\u2019s by\nnearly $100 weekly in 1980, the gap had more than doubled to around $250 by\n2017. The takeaway from these results is that women have greater incentives to\ninvest in higher education, but men receive higher returns than women, and\nmen\u2019s advantage has increased over time. 
\n
Mandel, Hadas and Assaf Rotman. 2021. Revealing the concealed effect of top earnings on the gender gap in the economic value of higher education; USA 1980-2017. Demography<\/i>.
\n For the full article click here <\/i>\n <\/a>\n
\n <\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/section>\n \n \n \n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Selected Findings Devaluation Housework Division RETURNS TO EDUCATION DEVALUATION Using integrated data on individuals and occupations from the US Census (1960-2010) and the ACS surveys (2001-2015), the findings show, similarly to previous studies, that in recent decades, and especially from 1980 onwards, a growing number of women in the US have approached the head of … Continue reading “Findings”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":7,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-27","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/people.socsci.tau.ac.il\/mu\/sigie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/27","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/people.socsci.tau.ac.il\/mu\/sigie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/people.socsci.tau.ac.il\/mu\/sigie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/people.socsci.tau.ac.il\/mu\/sigie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/people.socsci.tau.ac.il\/mu\/sigie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27"}],"version-history":[{"count":52,"href":"https:\/\/people.socsci.tau.ac.il\/mu\/sigie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/27\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":473,"href":"https:\/\/people.socsci.tau.ac.il\/mu\/sigie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/27\/revisions\/473"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/people.socsci.tau.ac.il\/mu\/sigie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}