I have been thinking a fair amount recently about ultimate goals in life, and how they effect people. A common misconception in the modern capitalistic society is that everyone's goal is to make money. This comes from the common knowledge that the definition of "business" is to make money, and everyone at some point in time needs to do "business" in order to survive. However, money itself is a really abstract concept. Even more common knowledge is that money itself has no intrinsic value. There is nothing special about the piece of paper or the digital bank counter that increases anybody's utility. Money is only valuable because it can be translated into things that people actually care about. So: what then is the meaning of life, if not money? I posit that there are three common pursuits.
1) Pleasure. Fun. Having pretty things. Going on awesome trips. Listening to funny people. Sitting in comfortable chairs. Eating good food. etc etc
2) Status. Being thought smart or beautiful. Being differed to in a conversation. Having the best things. Winning.
3) Power. Being able to change aspects of the world from what is to what should be (as determined by the individual). Having the ability to make the world react to one's own thoughts.
I listed the more cynical words to describe these life-pursuits, but give me a chance to defend them.
A common goal in academia is supposed to be the pursuit of knowledge, but I see this as a subset of pleasure. Mathematicians see math as pretty, and they give their lives in pursuit of that prettiness. French history majors think that the stories of the past are awesome, so they collect stories of the past. Status can also be a very important part of the academic world. People who spend their childhood competing for the top might see it as a natural progression to simply continue at the game they are winning at. Occasionally power-driven people are guided into academia as well, because they want the freedom to pursue their vision, but they are more rare. Acadamia does not have enough money for most power-driven people.
Another commonly cited goal is the love of family. However, that is a blend of power and status. Power, because concentrating your abilities on a smaller, tightly bonded subset of the population is often more effective than trying to change the whole world. Status, because the parent that most often expresses the priority of the family is one of the two most high ranking people in that family.
I can't think of any other commonly cited goals, or any underlying goals.
Anyway, this analysis leads to some interesting results when you think about the kinds of options that people have available to them. Specifically, I would like to argue that women who have a full time job are self-selecting for more power and status than pleasure driven goals. If you think about the kinds of options that most women have available to them, you will see that there is one job that is very difficult for men to break into: being a housewife. While the profession of stay-at-home dad is growing, it is not nearly as common as the stay-at-home mom, and women are much more likely to be childless support spouses than men. It turns out that this kind of a job provides a very high pleasure to work ratio, at least at the higher family income levels. You are expected to share the same living accommodations and budget as a person with very little accountability when it comes to the amount of societal good you are producing. Just don't get divorced. Or have a good lawyer if you do.
However, there are also plenty of women who want the status and power associated with high status, high-power occupations. However, these women, by self-selection, are disproportionately uninterested in salary. Consequentially, when they negotiate, they are going to concentrate more on elements that will lend them more status and power in the work place, not more take-home salary. The book "Women don't ask" has a lot of evidence that women don't negotiate as hard as they might for higher pay. It then concludes that this is because women have lower self-esteem and are less aggressive. While I have fewer data points, I suspect that an element contributing to these numbers is that the women who are in a position of negotiation are also disproportionately disinterested in money. We have more pressing things to worry about.
-------------------------------------------
Kim's Comments
Interesting! I am glad you posted.
Do you have an idea for how to test your theory at the end against the "Women don't ask" theory? Do you expect that the women are ensuring that they receive more status or power within the companies in some measurable way? Couldn't it also be (and I think this is the general theory) that women are generally not in as good of a position to negotiate in the first place, whether that be due to indicators (eg women generally aren't as good at X, you hiring you for X is riskier), training/social expectations, or natural inclinations?
One point I think is slightly unclear (though clearer to me, because we had a conversation about this aspect once) is the value you're claiming comes from being a family person or being a housewife. Near the beginning of your post, you mention status/power associated with promoting the family, but later you say that housewives disproportionately favor pleasure. It might be worth clarifying this.
1) Pleasure. Fun. Having pretty things. Going on awesome trips. Listening to funny people. Sitting in comfortable chairs. Eating good food. etc etc
2) Status. Being thought smart or beautiful. Being differed to in a conversation. Having the best things. Winning.
3) Power. Being able to change aspects of the world from what is to what should be (as determined by the individual). Having the ability to make the world react to one's own thoughts.
I listed the more cynical words to describe these life-pursuits, but give me a chance to defend them.
A common goal in academia is supposed to be the pursuit of knowledge, but I see this as a subset of pleasure. Mathematicians see math as pretty, and they give their lives in pursuit of that prettiness. French history majors think that the stories of the past are awesome, so they collect stories of the past. Status can also be a very important part of the academic world. People who spend their childhood competing for the top might see it as a natural progression to simply continue at the game they are winning at. Occasionally power-driven people are guided into academia as well, because they want the freedom to pursue their vision, but they are more rare. Acadamia does not have enough money for most power-driven people.
Another commonly cited goal is the love of family. However, that is a blend of power and status. Power, because concentrating your abilities on a smaller, tightly bonded subset of the population is often more effective than trying to change the whole world. Status, because the parent that most often expresses the priority of the family is one of the two most high ranking people in that family.
I can't think of any other commonly cited goals, or any underlying goals.
Anyway, this analysis leads to some interesting results when you think about the kinds of options that people have available to them. Specifically, I would like to argue that women who have a full time job are self-selecting for more power and status than pleasure driven goals. If you think about the kinds of options that most women have available to them, you will see that there is one job that is very difficult for men to break into: being a housewife. While the profession of stay-at-home dad is growing, it is not nearly as common as the stay-at-home mom, and women are much more likely to be childless support spouses than men. It turns out that this kind of a job provides a very high pleasure to work ratio, at least at the higher family income levels. You are expected to share the same living accommodations and budget as a person with very little accountability when it comes to the amount of societal good you are producing. Just don't get divorced. Or have a good lawyer if you do.
However, there are also plenty of women who want the status and power associated with high status, high-power occupations. However, these women, by self-selection, are disproportionately uninterested in salary. Consequentially, when they negotiate, they are going to concentrate more on elements that will lend them more status and power in the work place, not more take-home salary. The book "Women don't ask" has a lot of evidence that women don't negotiate as hard as they might for higher pay. It then concludes that this is because women have lower self-esteem and are less aggressive. While I have fewer data points, I suspect that an element contributing to these numbers is that the women who are in a position of negotiation are also disproportionately disinterested in money. We have more pressing things to worry about.
-------------------------------------------
Kim's Comments
Interesting! I am glad you posted.
Do you have an idea for how to test your theory at the end against the "Women don't ask" theory? Do you expect that the women are ensuring that they receive more status or power within the companies in some measurable way? Couldn't it also be (and I think this is the general theory) that women are generally not in as good of a position to negotiate in the first place, whether that be due to indicators (eg women generally aren't as good at X, you hiring you for X is riskier), training/social expectations, or natural inclinations?
One point I think is slightly unclear (though clearer to me, because we had a conversation about this aspect once) is the value you're claiming comes from being a family person or being a housewife. Near the beginning of your post, you mention status/power associated with promoting the family, but later you say that housewives disproportionately favor pleasure. It might be worth clarifying this.
No comments:
Post a Comment