Median income for female S&P500 CEOs 13% more than men

[cybercoma]

Shady noted in his status update that female CEOs made on average 13% more than male CEOs.

Here's a link to the study done by Nerdwallet Investing: http://www.nerdwallet.com/investing/corporate-taxes/top-executive-pay/info

They note a few things on that page that are important to consider.

First, CEOs are not always the highest paid at a company.

Sometimes, however, the highest paid person at a company is not the CEO. For example, Facebook paid Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg $31.0 million, but paid CEO Mark Zuckerberg only $1.7 million. Similarly, Sempra Energy paid Executive Chairman Donald Felsinger $11.8 million, but paid CEO Debra Reed only $8.2 million.

They also note that women may still be underpaid however.

It would impossible to know exactly why women's compensation is greater than men's at the typical CEO level without understanding each CEO's background and value to his or her company. Nevertheless, the distribution of earnings and people involved suggest that the explanation is related to the low level of female participation at the executive level. Just as the male CEO set contains superstars with household names, like Larry Ellison ($77.6 million) and Les Moonves ($69.9 million), the female CEO set similarly contains familiar names like Meg Whitman ($16.5 million), Indra Nooyi ($17.1 million), and Carol Bartz ($16.4 million). Yet the male superstars' compensation far outshines that of similar women. With women representing almost half of graduates of top business schools, but holding only four percent of the S&P500 CEO positions, only the most impressive businesswomen make it to the boardroom. The more average female executives, who would occupy a share of the CEO positions in a gender-neutral world, end up in other roles for a variety of reasons, truncating the distribution of female CEO pay and skewing averages and medians upward. If this is the case, the argument could be made that CEO women are actually the right tail of the distribution and are therefore underpaid relative to their right tail male peers.

The data provides some support for this thesis. For companies with positive earnings, female CEOs were compensated an average of $13,005 for every million of pre-tax income their company earned last year. Male CEOs whose companies had positive earnings took home an average of $15,935 per million earned, 23% more than the women.

It's really inconvenient when you don't look at the original studies then turn around and imply almost the exact opposite of their findings.

[-1=e^ipi]

Women out earning men is a theme that will probably prop up more this decade.

Unmarried female millennials in urban areas outearn their male counterparts for Canada, UK, US and other western countries. Females make up 60%+ of university graduates.

[bush_cheney2004]

S&P 500 is an American stock exchange of mostly American companies. Does not apply globally.

[WestCoastRunner]

. Females make up 60%+ of university graduates.

Not sure what your point is there? So what?

[-1=e^ipi]

Note sure if my post is going to count as thread drift or not... If it is let me know.

Not sure what your point is there? So what?

In the long run, people with higher levels of education tend to have higher earnings. So if females as a group are obtaining higher levels of education now, they will likely have higher earnings than their male counterparts in the future.

When males made up 56% of university graduates it was 'proof' that university institutions were 'old boys clubs', that women were being discriminated against, and that quotas were needed. Now as women make over 60% of university graduates, there is nothing but silence. I guess it must be 'girl power' or something.

It's almost like the constant campaigns in primary and secondary school to empower girls and push girls into post-secondary school (but not do the same for boys, it's not like boys need to be empowered or anything...), all of the female-only scholarships that make it easier for females to obtain financial support to pursue their education, all of the media portrayal of men as stupid buffoons, violent thugs or rapists, and all of the social justice campaigns that teaches young boys that they should feel ashamed of their 'privilege' and teaches society that it is preferable to favour women when it comes to employment or education in order to reduce social injustice actually have an effect. Or maybe males are just defective human beings.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Michael Hardner
superfluous image

[cybercoma]

millennials in urban areas outearn their male counterparts for Canada, UK, US and other western countries. Females make up 60%+ of university graduates.

They do. You're right. They're over half the graduates of prestigious business schools. Meanwhile, they make up a tiny fraction of S&P 500 CEOs. So as of right now, it doesn't matter that they're more educated.

[cybercoma]

Oh and women are just over half the population, so it stands to reason that they would be just over half the graduates all things being equal.

[-1=e^ipi]

They do. You're right. They're over half the graduates of prestigious business schools. Meanwhile, they make up a tiny fraction of S&P 500 CEOs. So as of right now, it doesn't matter that they're more educated.

How many of these CEOs are millennials? Basically zero.

Given the trends we see for millennials, how do you think that ratio will look in 20-30 years time?

But I get your mentality. As long as there is 1 place where women are underrepresented (STEM fields or top 500 CEOs), all male issues must be ignored. Millennial males just have to resign themselves to being scape goats for social justice until the older generations die out.

Oh and women are just over half the population, so it stands to reason that they would be just over half the graduates all things being equal.

But women do not make up over 60% of the population.

And I was talking specifically about millennials. There are more millennial males than there are millennial females:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/demo10a-eng.htm

Females outnumber males for older population groups because men have a much higher workplace death rate (92% of workplace deaths are male), men have a much higher suicide rate (4 times the female suicide rate), and men have a shorter life expectancy.

Edited May 3, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[Michael Hardner]

Now as women make over 60% of university graduates, there is nothing but silence.

Silence ? 33 million Google Hits:

https://www.google.ca/search?q=concern+boys+university&rlz=1C5CHFA_enCA611CA611&oq=concern+boys+university&aqs=chrome..69i57.5326j0j1&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=119&ie=UTF-8#q=concern+boys+university+enrollment+

I'm going to try to propel this thread past the usual obtuse gender-blaming game and submit that our changing work environment has de-emphasized physical abilities and emphasized new skills including some of those that females traditionally excel at.

I'm referring here to communicating, networking, and consensus building. So much more of what I see in the workplace is sales, marketing and team-based that I'm not surprised to see that women are doing better. They still have to destroy their careers, though, if they want to have children and I'm not sure whether that is going to change.

[Michael Hardner]

Here's the silence, from the conference board, and a good springboard for discussion as to whether CEOs will be predominantly female in our lifetimes....

In recent years, concerns have been raised about a growing gender gap in Canadian education. Just 20 years ago, a smaller proportion of women than men had a tertiary education, and a key challenge was to make higher education more accessible and welcoming to women. While the challenge remains in some of the mathematics, computer, and engineering disciplines, the overall gender imbalance tipped in women’s favour in Canada in the early 1990s.¹

Many are asking whether there is a “boy crisis” in education and wondering what can be done to address it.

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/education/gender-gap-tertiary.aspx

[-1=e^ipi]

Okay, you have a bit of a point. There is a small amount of attention being paid to these issues. But it is greatly muffled by the mainstream narrative and often it is not socially acceptable to speak out (example: Look at the Honey Badger panel getting kicked out of Calgary comic con 2-3 weeks ago).

I'm going to try to propel this thread past the usual obtuse gender-blaming game

I'm not trying to blame any gender for the way things are (all genders have agency). The current situation is arguably the inevitable result of the industrial revolution due to social and biologic evolution that favoured societies that valued women more than men (i.e. male disposability theory). Females complaining about discrimination is socially acceptable. Males complaining about discrimination is not socially acceptable because it goes against the core of the traditional male gender role (males are supposed to be though, 'man up', 'grow balls' and not complain).

I'm going to try to propel this thread past the usual obtuse gender-blaming game and submit that our changing work environment has de-emphasized physical abilities and emphasized new skills including some of those that females traditionally excel at.

But there are also many non-physical skills that men excel at that is becoming more valuable. There is some neurological evidence that males are on average better suited at programming, STEM fields, spatial awareness, etc. I don't see how the changing work environment can explain such a large university attendance gender gap, nor the gender pay gap for unmarried urban millenials.

But it is interesting that many people in society have a double standard with respect to differences in outcomes between genders:

If an outcome is preferable to males: Clearly this is discrimination and it's the fault of men for discriminating!

If an outcome is preferable to females: Clearly this is due to biological differences and it's the fault of men for not being female enough!

I can find examples of this social attitude if you want (Cenk Uygur or the Young Turks is a good example).

They still have to destroy their careers, though, if they want to have children and I'm not sure whether that is going to change.

I don't agree with this. Why do women have to 'destroy' their careers if they want to have children? Why can't the spouse contribute equally to raising a child?

Also, this assumes that females will be able to have children if they want to. With movements like MGTOW and Soushoku-Danshi the number of males willing to enter long term relationships (or even relationships at all) is decreasing and there will probably be a large 'marriage willingness' gender gap over the coming decades in developed countries (which will lead to demographic collapse).

Edited May 3, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[WestCoastRunner]

Here's the silence, from the conference board, and a good springboard for discussion as to whether CEOs will be predominantly female in our lifetimes....

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/education/gender-gap-tertiary.aspx

It's a huge challenge when women are not enrolling in technology, sciences, engineering. These are the sectors where women can expect to earn higher wages. Female students at a younger age need female role models and mentors who are already working in these fields. My concern is that at the elementary and senior years the girls aren't being encouraged enough to pursue these occupations

[Bonam]

They do. You're right. They're over half the graduates of prestigious business schools. Meanwhile, they make up a tiny fraction of S&P 500 CEOs. So as of right now, it doesn't matter that they're more educated.

You do realize that the average age of business school graduates is early 20s while the average age of CEOs is late 50s... right? What percent of the graduates of prestigious business schools were women 35 years ago? Think this might have anything to do with it? Or do you expect those prestigious business school graduates to instantly be hired as CEOs?

[cybercoma]

You do realize that the average age of business school graduates is early 20s while the average age of CEOs is late 50s... right? What percent of the graduates of prestigious business schools were women 35 years ago? Think this might have anything to do with it? Or do you expect those prestigious business school graduates to instantly be hired as CEOs?

You sit here and talk down to me when this is exactly the point. Women aren't represented in positions of power and according to you they won't be for at least another 25 years. That's if they reach parity with the numbers who graduate anyway.

Edited May 4, 2015 by cybercoma

[Bonam]

You sit here and talk down to me when this is exactly the point. Women aren't represented in positions of power and according to you they won't be for at least another 25 years.

People with the qualifications (and opportunities, motivation, etc) will reach positions of power. In the past, it was rare for women to have these qualifications and opportunities, for a variety of reasons certainly including sexism/discrimination. Today, that is no longer the case, women are getting post-secondary educations in greater numbers than men and are presented with all the same career opportunities. When the current generation of women now beginning their careers reach the pinnacles of their careers in 20-30 years, they will hold a comparable or even greater number of important positions than men. That day is inevitable and all trends point towards it. But it's not gonna be tomorrow. Not sure what else you'd want done about it.

[cybercoma]

People with the qualifications (and opportunities, motivation, etc) will reach positions of power.

Part of those opportunities is having the social capital to be part of the old boys club.

[LemonPureLeaf]

Part of those opportunities is having the social capital to be part of the old boys club.

So what do we call it when women are the majority in Uni? Old hags club?

[-1=e^ipi]

It's a huge challenge when women are not enrolling in technology, sciences, engineering. These are the sectors where women can expect to earn higher wages. Female students at a younger age need female role models and mentors who are already working in these fields. My concern is that at the elementary and senior years the girls aren't being encouraged enough to pursue these occupations

Sigh the STEM argument. So I guess as long as women are less than 50% in engineering then they are being discriminated against or aren't being empowered enough. What about men being the minority in health degrees, education degrees, or pretty much the vast majority of fields except engineering? Oh, that doesn't matter apparently.

And what about boys not having enough role models at an early age? In parts of Britain, 70% of households do not have a father (single mother households) and the vast majority of elementary school teachers are female (might have something to do with the stereotype that men are dangerous potential rapists that should be kept away from small children).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2359643/My-week-man-desert-In-parts-Britain-70-children-live-fathers-YASMIN-ALIBHAI-BROWN-visited-discovered-devastating-consequences.html

WestCoastRunner, do you think that maybe females have a tenancy to prefer socialization and human interaction relative to men, that this difference has some basis in evolutionary psychology and natural selection under the hunter-gatherer society that most of human existence lived under, and that this can help explain why females are overrepresented in health & education degrees, but underrepresented in engineering?

So what do we call it when women are the majority in Uni? Old hags club?

Apparently we call that women are discriminated against because they aren't the majority in STEM yet.

Edited May 4, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[cybercoma]

So what do we call it when women are the majority in Uni? Old hags club?

What do we call a poster who creates multiple accounts and continues to post the same ridiculous inflammatory rhetoric from all of them?

[LemonPureLeaf]

What do we call a poster who creates multiple accounts and continues to post the same ridiculous inflammatory rhetoric from all of them?

this is my first and only account. I post only thoughts from my heart and mind. I never wish to inflame anyone. If I anger people it's never intentional.