<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xml:lang="en-US" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <title>Engineering Science - Negotiating Equal Pay Comments</title>
  <id>tag:blog.phds.org,2008:/2007/7/30/negotiating-equal-pay/comments</id>
  <generator uri="http://mephistoblog.com" version="0.7.0">Mephisto Noh-Varr</generator>
  <link href="http://blog.phds.org/2007/7/30/negotiating-equal-pay/comments.xml" rel="self" type="application/atom+xml"/>
  <link href="/2007/7/30/negotiating-equal-pay" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
  <updated>2007-07-31T17:23:54Z</updated>
  <entry xml:base="/">
    <author>
      <name>Geoff Davis</name>
    </author>
    <id>tag:blog.phds.org,2007-07-30:667:675</id>
    <published>2007-07-31T17:23:53Z</published>
    <updated>2007-07-31T17:23:53Z</updated>
    <category term="Women in Science"/>
    <link href="http://blog.phds.org/2007/7/30/negotiating-equal-pay" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <title>Comment on 'Negotiating Equal Pay' by Geoff Davis</title>
<content type="html">&lt;p&gt;Interesting idea about the outside situations.  Having a spouse/partner who earns more might make money less of an issue, and I'd imagine that women would be in that situation more often than men.  That particular asymmetry is probably shrinking, so maybe this is one of those differences that will become less important.  &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;One interesting thing to note: the gender difference in propensity to negotiate was huge in the first Boggle experiment (a factor of 8) and went down to a factor of about 1.3 when people were told explicitly that the payment was negotiable.  If indifference to money were the explanation, it seems unlikely to me that you'd have so big a change in behavior from such a small change in the setup.  The author's explanation of gender differences in cultural norms/rewards or some testosterone-fueled jockeying for higher relative wealth sounds like a better fit to me.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I haven't heard anything about initially high wage levels leading to lower raises over time.  Even if it did eventually lead to the same salary as your peers, you'd still be ahead overall.&lt;/p&gt;</content>  </entry>
  <entry xml:base="/">
    <author>
      <name>Victoria McGovern</name>
    </author>
    <id>tag:blog.phds.org,2007-07-30:667:670</id>
    <published>2007-07-31T02:45:32Z</published>
    <updated>2007-07-31T02:45:32Z</updated>
    <category term="Women in Science"/>
    <link href="http://blog.phds.org/2007/7/30/negotiating-equal-pay" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <title>Comment on 'Negotiating Equal Pay' by Victoria McGovern</title>
<content type="html">&lt;p&gt;Interesting. But I wonder who the non-negotiating women are. This group did an experiment where they told volunteers that they'd be paid $3-10 to play a game of boggle. When offered $3 once the game was done, far more women than men took the low offer rather than asking for more. Maybe they've accidentally selected for women who have outside situations that decrease their money drive.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Negotiation stories are interesting. But I've also heard anecdotal stories about newly hired assistant professors pushing hard for better offers and then getting low-balled on raises for a few years until they're more on par with their peers. Have you ever seen any data on whether playing hardball with starting salary really gets people to substantially higher salaries 5 or 10 years in?&lt;/p&gt;</content>  </entry>
</feed>
