兩性愈平等 加速貧富不均？
摘錄自：天下雜誌 經濟學人電子報 2013/2/14
2014-02-10 Web only 作者：經濟學人
 |
| 圖片來源：flickr.com/photos/amira_a/ |
電視影集《廣告狂人》所描繪的1960年代廣告產業，女性工作者不僅薪資偏低、經常遭受性騷擾，還得獨力教養孩子，忍受丈夫在外偷腥。在當時，兩性平等是遙不可及的夢想。然而，劇中男主角唐‧德雷柏卻甩了原本擔任顧問的女友，轉而與秘書結婚，徹底打破了家庭收入的平等關係。
如今，成功的男性更有可能與成功的女性結婚。這是好事，因為它代表了擁有高收入的女性人數愈來愈多。1960年代，男性醫生多半與護士結婚，原因是女性醫生人數稀少。現在的情況當然已經大不相同。但是，同型交配（外型條件近似的個體相互交配）的結果卻是加速了家庭收入的不平等。
高教育程度與低教育程度者之間的薪資差距逐年擴大，但是理論上來說，如果有愈來愈多女性取得大學學位、擁有高收入的工作，應該會減緩家庭收入不平等的現象。假使人們是隨機選擇配偶，許多高收入女性就有可能與低收入男性結婚，反之亦然。不同教育程度的工作者薪資差距仍會存在，但家庭收入不平等的現象將會消除。換句話說，根據合理推估，如果是隨機選擇配偶，1960年代與2005年代，高收入家庭與低收入家庭的落差，不會逐年擴大。
但事實上，高教育程度者相互結婚的比例卻是愈來愈高。1960年代，有25％大學畢業的男性與大學畢業的女性結婚；但是到了2005年，比例提高到48％，而且高收入家庭與低收入家庭之間的落差，更為擴大。
會出現這樣的情況，完全可以預期。擁有相似教育背景的人，畢業後也會選擇類似的工作環境，而且比較容易彼此吸引。最重要的是，與自己背景類似的另一半結婚的經濟誘因愈來愈強。在1960年代，研究所畢業的女性若與高中輟學的男性結婚，他們的家庭收入仍比全國平均高出40％；然而到了2005年，這對夫妻的家庭收入卻會比全國平均低8％。在1960年代，夫妻擁有研究所學歷的家庭收入，比全國平均將進一步擴大家庭收入不平等的現象。（吳凱琳譯）
©The Economist Newspaper Limited 2014
The Economist
Assortative
mating
Sex, brains
and inequality
By The Economist
From The Economist
Published: February 10, 2014
Feb 8th 2014 | WASHINGTON, DC | From the print edition
How sexual equality increases the gap between rich and poor households.
IN "MAD MEN", a series about the advertising industry in the
1960s, women are underpaid, sexually harassed and left with the kids while
their husbands drunkenly philander. Sexual equality was a distant dream in
those days. But when Don Draper, the show's star, dumps the brainy consultant
he has been dating and marries his secretary, he strikes a blow for equality of
household income.
Nowadays, successful men are more likely to marry successful women.
This is a good thing. It reflects the fact that there are more high-flying
women. Male doctors in the 1960s married nurses because there were few female
doctors. Now there are plenty. Yet assortative mating (the tendency of similar
people to marry each other) aggravates inequality between households—two
married lawyers are much richer than a single mother who stacks shelves. A new
study* of hundreds of thousands of couples investigates the link.
The wage gap between highly and barely educated workers has grown, but
that could in theory have been offset by the fact that more women now go to
college and get good jobs. Had spouses chosen each other at random, many
well-paid women would have married ill-paid men and vice versa. Workers would
have become more unequal, but households would not. With such
"random" matching, the authors estimate that the Gini co-efficient,
which is zero at total equality and one at total inequality, would have
remained roughly unchanged, at 0.33 in 1960 and 0.34 in 2005.
But in reality the highly educated increasingly married each other. In
1960 25% of men with university degrees married women with degrees; in 2005,
48% did. As a result, the Gini rose from 0.34 in 1960 to 0.43 in 2005.
Assortative mating is hardly mysterious. People with similar education
tend to work in similar places and often find each other attractive. On top of
this, the economic incentive to marry your peers has increased. A woman with a
graduate degree whose husband dropped out of high school in 1960 could still
enjoy household income 40% above the national average; by 2005, such a couple
would earn 8% below it. In 1960 a household composed of two people with
graduate degrees earned 76% above the average; by 2005, they earned 119% more.
Women have far more choices than before, and that is one reason why inequality
will be hard to reverse.
©The Economist Newspaper Limited 2014
沒有留言:
張貼留言