Teachers and nannies aren't paid a whole lot because they're easily replaceable, not because they're jobs dominated by women.
Doctors used to be exclusively men. Have salaries gone down now that women make up a significant percent of the number of doctors?
[1]https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upshot/as-women-take-over... [2] https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/nation-s-physician-workfo... [3] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59687947
I was responding to the fact that doctors aren't female-dominated right now, a point you missed. Which they aren't. We haven't flooded it with a bunch of women: We have a limited capacity to train doctors. Nor are we getting folks in the market that used to be housewives: That time period has long since moved, though in many places, women still carry household responsibilities in addition to work. Rather than a flood, women are replacing men, mostly. Which is generally how it goes: Women replace men in some fields, and then pay goes down.
from the second link: One of the steadiest movements has been the rise in women as a percentage of the physician workforce: It rose from 28.3% in 2007 to 36.3% last year, according to the AAMC’s Physician Specialty Data Reports from 2008 to 2020:
2007 — 28.3% 2010 — 30.4% 2013 — 32.6% 2015 — 34.0% 2017 — 35.2% 2019 — 36.3%
the above growth rates are not domination unless you're talking about women being dominant.
Do you have some alternative version of "dominated" that I'm not privy to?
[1] https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/clr#:~:text=See%2....
I don't know any nannies, but it's not true that teachers are easily replaceable. Not good ones, anyway.
Good teachers need to show these skills:
* Classroom management (possibly in classes with disturbed kids)
* Curriculum knowledge (requires regular training)
* Social work skills
* Child psychology
* Understanding of various learning impediments
The fact that teachers are cheap is not evidence that they're easily replaced.
It isn't like any other industry hires only "good" people, though, so calling out teaching for that - especially if your area has a shortage - seems a bit unfair.
It is a rather sad and naive view of the value of work if you think that it is decided by market value. My work as a developer has a high market value because what I do is generating revenue for my employer. The work of the teacher who shapes the future of our children or the work of nurse that take care of our dying parents don't generate any revenue, and thus has a lower market value, but I, and I think we as a society should, value it much more.
Good teachers and good nannies aren't easier to replace than good carpenters or construction workers. But since many men who are in charge of setting salaries don't understand that they aren't as well paid.
> Have salaries gone down now that women make up a significant percent of the number of doctors?
Yes. I don't have the time to dig up the sources right now, and I don't remember seeing it specifically about doctors, but in many lines of work the relative salaries have gone down when traditionally male professions have been taken over more and more by women.
Teachers are glorified babysitters in the vast majority of instances due to many countries making truancy illegal. Yes, a great teacher is extremely valuable, but the vast majority of teachers are not great because there is not a high demand for great teachers. It’s even worse that we’re ruining the environment for both great teachers and great students by forcing students who have no interest in learning to be there.
economics in general has no answer for this differential temporal factor in value creation vs value capture. it's all predicated on immediate, atomic transactions, although the concept of externalities at least acknowledges the issue.
No. I don't have the time to dig up the sources right now, and I don't remember seeing it specifically about doctors, but in many lines of work the relative salaries have gone up when traditionally male professions have been taken over more and more by women.
"That which can be asserted without evidence..."
and some of the research behind the article: [1]
The article contains quite a few interesting links to research if you are interested to learn more.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upshot/as-women-take-over...
[1] https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/88/2/865/223534...
I'm not sure teachers and nannies are good examples. Public school teachers are largely unionized which would eliminate differences in pay between men and women. And many nannies are effectively small business people who set their own rates.
No, it wouldn't. Why would it?
