Lawyer Pay
Being a Lawyer and Male Makes You a Top Earner, Census Report Shows
Posted Sep 10, 2008 5:57 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
The highest earners in 2007 were men in legal occupations, who earned a median salary in 2007 of $105,233, according to a Census Bureau report.
The online report (PDF) issued in August shows women in legal occupations, which includes paralegal as well as lawyer positions, didn’t fare as well. Their median salary was $53,790. As a whole women in computer and mathematical professions earned more, with a median salary of $61,957.
Because data was collected throughout the year, the salary figures were adjusted for inflation to reflect a fixed reference point for the year.
Even when particular jobs within the legal profession were examined, women lawyers continued to lag behind their male counterparts. Women lawyers made a median of $93,600, a salary that was 77.8 percent of male lawyers’ median salary of $120,400. Female paralegal and legal assistants earned a median of $42,600, which was 93.2 percent of the $45,700 median that men earned. Female judges, magistrates and other judicial workers earned a median of $69,500, which is 64.3 percent of the median of $108,100 earned by males.
Despite the differences, it still pays to have a professional degree, according to a Wall Street Journal story published today. Lawyers and others with professional degrees were the only group who saw their inflation-adjusted earnings increase over the most recent economic expansion.
All other workers, including those with Ph.D.s and college degrees, had lower income in inflation-adjusted terms than they did in 2000, the Wall Street Journal reports.
The story refers to Census Bureau figures showing the inflation-adjusted median salary for all people with professional degrees was $89,602 in 2007. That is an increase of 2.8 percent over the median salary of $87,158 in 2000.
The inflation-adjusted 2007 median salary was $47,240 for a person with a bachelor’s degree and $28,290 for a high-school graduate.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
Ellen Barshevsky
Sep 11, 2008 5:10 PM CST
This is ridiculus. I read the study and see that women have to work TWICE as hard to make the same dollars as men. Put another way, MEN work HALF as hard as women to bring home the same amount of dollars. That is REALLY UNFAIR!.
WOMEN, we must band together, as we are getting screwed by the man. This is EXACTLY what I’ve been saying all along; maybe finally the silent majority of women will not only listen but take ACTION.
We deserve equal work for equal pay. What is so complicated about that? Is equality something we WOMEN are afraid to stand up for?
When I discussed this with my boyfriend, he COMPLETELY agreed. He knows that women MUST be treated fairly. WHY cant the other men be so understanding and supportive? I call upon all women lawyers to stand up for what is RIGHT. Equal pay for equal work.
And Kudo’s to McCane for having the guts to hire a woman. I may not agree with everything he says, but he knows that it is time to put a woman in the White House.
Flag this comment
McLean
Sep 12, 2008 4:01 AM CST
Poster # 1,
“Kudos” to McCain for hiring a woman? So ANY woman is good enough for the White House? Are you kidding me?
I’m a woman, and I say no to Palin as a VP candidate. She lacks the intellect of other GOP women such as Olympia Snowe or Kay Hutchinson; she lacks the knowledge and understanding of national and international issues, as was woefully displayed last night during the Charlie Gibson interview on ABC; and I confess that I am dismayed that any woman could celebrate someone whose agenda is so anti-feminist. She opposes abortion in cases of rape or incest. So little girls should have their fathers’ babies? Women should have their rapists’ babies?
When she was mayor of Wasilla, rape victims had to pay for the forensic exams that are necessary if they want to prosecute their rapist. Even women’s rights groups in Alaska are opposing her VP candidacy.
No, poster #1, I don’t want or need *that* woman in the White House.
Flag this comment
Jon McCane
Sep 12, 2008 5:20 AM CST
And Kudo’s to Poster 1 for both using an apostrophe correctly, and properly spelling the name of the GOP nominee for President of the United States. Break the glass ceiling, sister!
Flag this comment
Jim Eddinton
Sep 12, 2008 5:26 AM CST
I was going to say “How long before Barshevsky shows up whinging about da man holdin’ dem chix down, but she beat me to it… whinging about men holding women down.
Note the article above makes no comment or comparison about the gender ratio of hours billed or hours worked or professional experience or education or location or firm or likability, or rain making ability or anything else.
Put another way, if the women lawyer who makes $93,600 (or any lawyer who makes it) wants to make the $120,400 salary that the male lawyer makes, her (any lawyer’s) hours billed or hours worked, professional experience, education, location, firm, likability, rain making ability, and everything else/some combination thereof had better be at least as good as the lawyer making $120K. If not, there’s no reason to pay them as much.
Ellen, you should just hire all women attorneys, and just pay them 250K, regardless of hours billed or hours worked, professional experience, education, location, firm, likability, rain making ability, or anything else.
Why aren’t you?
Flag this comment
Barry Obama
Sep 12, 2008 5:28 AM CST
With #3 as to #1,
And ridiculous.
To the ABA,
Is this really news?
Flag this comment
State Attorney
Sep 12, 2008 5:50 AM CST
Right. Tell us something we don’t know. Heck, the only reason I’m reading this is because ABA is still sending me my free subscription. I couldn’t afford it otherwise!
Flag this comment
Bill
Sep 12, 2008 6:09 AM CST
Allright folks! Let’s hear it for Ms. Barshevsky! Give it up! Isn’t she great? Yeah! Don’t worry, folks; she’ll be back.
I ESPECIALLY like the EMPHASIS on certain WORDS. It really help convey the whiny tone. Well done madam! Well done!
At my firm, women are paid equally to men. In fact, I know several women making WAY (emphasis word) more than I am. Of course, they’re senior partners and have been here longer. Those darn sexist men tried but couldn’t keep them from becoming partners and making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
OH - by the way, what the article does not discuss is any possible rational and reasonable explanation for the skew in the data. Like, for example, the fact that “legal occupation” includes paralegal jobs, which overwhelmiingly are held by women. It’s no secret that paralegals are not paid anything like lawyers are. So if we’re looking at the “average” salary of women in “legal jobs” and a larger percentage of women in “legal jobs” are paralegals compared to the percentage of men in “legal jobs” who are paralegals, the “average” women’s salary will be skewed lower compared to men.
We all (hopefully) know how statistics work. So, Ms. Bashevsky, before you climb on your high horse, don’t assume this study offers anything resembling conclusive proof of male bias keeping women poor. Let’s first find out how the data was actually collected and what it actually means before jumping to unfounded conclusions about what it might represent.
Flag this comment
Jon Edwards
Sep 12, 2008 6:28 AM CST
As soon as I saw the article, I wondered how quick Ellen would be to comment. As an attorney in a small town, when the time comes for me to hire an associate, I intend to hire a woman, but it sure won’t be someone like Ellen. And, I will be paying her less than I pay myself. Just as I pay my female paralegal less.
Flag this comment
Unpopular View
Sep 12, 2008 6:51 AM CST
Maybe if you women were actually working instead of writing these diatribes, you would be making more.
Flag this comment
Jeremy
Sep 12, 2008 6:53 AM CST
Could it be, *gasp*, that some women take off time to have children, thus lowering annual earnings? I notice that this survey did not adjust for unpaid FMLA leave time taken (far more women than men take unpaid FMLA leave), for differences in experience due to time taken off for child bearing, or for differences in the amount of hours worked (the workaholic man who stays at the office till 8pm vs. the mom who picks up the kids from daycare at 6pm).
These are meaningless stats without some context.
Is this article claiming that when a firm advertises a starting salary of $150,000/yr, that when the applicant walks through the door, the firm adjusts salary upwards for men and downwards for women? Absurd.
Flag this comment
Tolerance
Sep 12, 2008 6:58 AM CST
Wow, you liberals sure are tolerant of other people. I like how you jump all over Ms. Barshevsky for mentioning Governor Palin, while ignoring her other remarks.
I just think this ABA Journal has rapidly declined to becoming a spokesmouth for the Democrat Party, and its many misguided minions.
Just my opinion.
As to the substance of the “study,” anyone with experience in science and/or statistics realizes that this study is completely meaningless. Yes, women may have lower salaries. You know what, my mother is also an attorney and she has a lower salary than I do. But she’s done that by choice. Having and spending time with her family was more important than ambition.
Most men look for reasons to get out of the house and away from child-rearing responsibilities. Work is an easy way to do it, and then we expect a big “thank you” from the family. Meanwhile, our work is rewarded by the firm. We get it both ways. It is unfair. Nu? Who says life is fair?
The study is ridiculous because it attempts to portray this as a man v. woman issue. It’s simply not.
Flag this comment
Tolerance Cont'd
Sep 12, 2008 7:00 AM CST
What I mean about not being a man v. woman issue is that it is not simply based on gender.
It is based on he inherent differences between the genders. Something whining and complaining is not going to change. (And the world is better off if it doesn’t change—we need some people who care about something other than money and ambition)
Flag this comment
in house
Sep 12, 2008 7:01 AM CST
I knew people would attribute these differences to so called personal choice and differences in so called merit. I call BS on both items. These “choices” do not occur in a vacuum. They occur as a result of policies and practices at law firms, in the appointment of judges and the utter lack of support in our society for child rearing, among other things. Merit too is suspect, when law firms reward only things like billable hours and origination. Check out the latest NAWL study to find out how flawed these supposed objective categories can be.
Flag this comment
Male 3L
Sep 12, 2008 7:18 AM CST
Good news for me, I guess….
Flag this comment
HT
Sep 12, 2008 7:23 AM CST
NoBamAbsolutelyNoBiden ‘08
Flag this comment
The Dude
Sep 12, 2008 7:27 AM CST
Great news for me. Not my problem : )
Flag this comment
Rick
Sep 12, 2008 7:30 AM CST
“Ellen, you should just hire all women attorneys”
Exactly - in a free job marketplace woiuldn’t a smart business staff itself with quality employees it could pay less? Unless, of course, there is no real disparity…
Flag this comment
Female 2L
Sep 12, 2008 7:36 AM CST
It only makes sense that the median for all male legal professionals is higher than for women, because the most experienced and most highly paid are men—from the days when very few women went to law school or even entered the work field. Maybe this study would be more useful, if it gave data on women and men of like age and experience.
Flag this comment
Dave
Sep 12, 2008 7:36 AM CST
Female lawyers earn less because they work less hours and leave the profession in fewer years then men. The salaries for female lawyers in the same year with the same experience as thier counterparts is equal.
Flag this comment
Kim
Sep 12, 2008 7:38 AM CST
Sadly, this is not news. But what this story doesn’t reflect is the career paths that were taken. Are there more women in public interest law? Government? Solos? Are these discrepancies more prevalent in firms? I’ve been in-house counsel for most of my career, and have been paid as well as most of my male colleagues. I’ve found that there were a lot more lucrative opportunities - and the ability to demand reasonable compensation - than in a law firm environment, where too much depends on which partner you get stuck with.
Flag this comment
susan
Sep 12, 2008 7:39 AM CST
Palin is to women as Thomas is to African Americans. She is perfect for the far right wing and religious fundamentalist element of the Republican Party. It would be nice if there was some other choice; a party that is based on fiscal conservatism (can’t wait for the bidding war for Michigan’s votes when the Dems and Republicans get together to bail out Ford and GM) and believes in individual liberties.
Flag this comment
Sarah
Sep 12, 2008 7:45 AM CST
It’s hard to pay professionals equally because they bring different skills to the table. With that said, here’s a big but: if one attorney is better at management and the other at legal issues or rainmaking can’t you determine that both skills are important and pay the same, with bonuses builkt in to performance in those areas? In my very small firm, the other associate (a male)gets more money and a cut on more of the work he does than I do, even if he doesn’t bring it in. That is wrong. My choice? Find another position with a better firm, something I am working on. And my clients go with me. In the meantime, I do a great job.
Note to mcLean at #2, you sound so angry….how can you possibly make some of those statements about Gov. Palin - it really diminishes your credibiity.
Flag this comment
NoBama 2008
Sep 12, 2008 7:45 AM CST
NoBamAbsolutelyNoBiden ‘08 - Are you scared or concerned - If not, you should be!!!!!
Flag this comment
Hadley V. Baxendale
Sep 12, 2008 7:48 AM CST
Wait—I thought all lawyers started at $160,000? How could the median be less?
As others have siad, these are meaningless numbers (and thus typical for this magazine) especially when lumping paralegals (mostly female) as “legal professionals.” Right now, in NYC, women between 25-35 IIRC earn more than men—the ceiling has been broken. As to judges, the pool is drawn from an older group, when the demographics were different. Today, half the law students (and presumably grads) are women. Run this study on grads ,10 years out. But it still won’t account for personal choice; many of my female colleagures over the past 25 years gladly and voluntarikly chose a lifestyle that invloved working fewer, or no, hours in a law firm. There is no conspiracy and the glass ceiling is long gone.
Flag this comment
Margret
Sep 12, 2008 7:57 AM CST
The law firm salary formula is simple: If you want to earn as much money as your male counterparts, bill more hours, spend your free time networking, stop running home to cook dinner for your lazy husbands and stop having babies. If this is objectionable, stop complaining and take your 77.8%.
Flag this comment
Old and Apparently Irrelevant
Sep 12, 2008 8:02 AM CST
Comment #3 is a classic indeed. The irony in all this is that the profession is being demonized for doing huge favors to women who want a reduced work schedule, which by the way is something that no male would have been permitted to do in the old days. Re comment #10, yes It is unfortunate that the ABA has been hijacked by the Left, but on a macro scale it is just another symptom of the passing of the torch in this country from the Greatest Generation to the Whiniest Generation.
Flag this comment
khazeh
Sep 12, 2008 8:05 AM CST
The apologists were saying the same thing back when my mother practiced law - oh, you ladies don’t work hard enough and you quit all the time to have babies, and if you DO work hard and DON’T put your family before your job, why, we’ll just assume you must be slacking off somehow. It never changes.
Flag this comment
Jade
Sep 12, 2008 8:11 AM CST
I’m female, and I have to agree with Tolerance on this one (regarginh thr article, not liberals). Some women are career focused and others are family focused. Unfortunately, you can’t devote 100% to both. The men who are at the top probably don’t spend enough time with their families. The men I know have wives who are either disgruntled or impatient. I am 28 right now and not married and don’t have kids. I am career focused right now and make good money. If I get married and take time off to honeymoon or maternity leave or whatever, I don’t expect to get paid as much asa male co-worker that billed 2500 hours that same year. Regardless of FMLA, if I bill 2000 hours and someone else bills 2500 hours, why should I expect to get equal pay? I doubt firms are saying, “We will pay our male summer associates $3,000 a week and our female summer associates will get $2,500…”
Flag this comment
Kathleen
Sep 12, 2008 8:11 AM CST
DUH!!! As a lawyer and a woman entering the profession in the late 1970s I was constantly challenged to pick between time to my career and time for my family. It was impossible to work for a “big firm” and have a reasonable family lifestyle. I think it still is .. for males and females. I have no regrets for making choices for more sanity and lower income. Too bad we are forced to make that choice. And to “Dude” (comment 15), it is your problem because talented lawyers are not available in the pool of candidates to work with your firm.
Flag this comment
STL
Sep 12, 2008 8:14 AM CST
I was so excited when I saw the title of this article because I knew Barschevsky would provide some entertainment for the morning.
Flag this comment
TMB
Sep 12, 2008 8:17 AM CST
Your article begins “The highest earners in 2007 were men in legal occupations, who earned a median salary in 2007 of $105,233, according to a Census Bureau report.” You are apparently not very careful
The report you reference lists male physicians and surgeons as earning $181,200. It lists male dentists as earning $150,500. Based on the report you cite, I would say that men in legal occupations are NOT the highest earners.
Flag this comment
Bill
Sep 12, 2008 8:18 AM CST
Ellen, the WSJ article is such utter crap, as most salary reports tend to be, I certainly wouldn’t use it as a basis for getting angry about women’s perceived lower salaries. I worked for ten years with a bachelor’s degree before going to law school and never came close to earning $47k, nor have most people of my generation. And I’m certainly not making six figures as a lawyer. If there’s any truth to the idea that women get paid less for doing the same job, it’s for reasons related to them not staying at the same company for as long, switching professions, not being as aggressive in asking for raises, etc., as much as their male counterparts, on average. I have NEVER been employed somewhere where women get paid lower salaries than men in the identical position. That’s the impression that these articles try to create, but it’s very misleading.
Flag this comment
Pro-Ellen
Sep 12, 2008 8:23 AM CST
It is astonishing that she manages to get the first post in on this one. Are you checking your email at 3am?
Usually Ellen’s tirades are somewhat randomly inspired. But the numbers don’t lie, even if the census is silent on explaining the discrepancies in pay. First off, it’s a census. Not a privately funded research study where you’re paid to come up with the results your financial backers want. It’s also based on such a large population that the impact of anomalies, individual motivations, and corporate policies are going to be diluted. The aggregate circumstances are such that men make more than women as a result. And I didn’t need a study to tell me that.
And any Democratic woman who is anti-Palin is a hypocrit. The only reason most liberal women backed Hilary was because she was a woman. Having a woman run was a gimmick to get a Democrat in the White House the same way Obama is on some vague concept of “change.” She wasn’t exactly qualified. To bash Palin, because the Republican party is attempting to cash in on the same gimmick, is just to be mad that your plan backfired. And to be honest, if you’re going to run someone on gender (or race) alone, shouldn’t it be as vice? Our president HAS to qualified and experienced in running our nation and remaining dominant in world affairs.
Flag this comment
TMB
Sep 12, 2008 8:32 AM CST
> “any Democratic woman who is anti-Palin is a hypocrit”
Any any social conservative who backs Palin needs to thank the Democrats and liberals who made it possible for Palin to be a mayor, a governor, and a candidate despite vehement opposition from the conservatives - at every step of the way - to granting women equal access to the workplace.
Flag this comment
Pro-Ellen
Sep 12, 2008 8:45 AM CST
I knew someone would draw the inference that I’m a conservative or a Republican. I’m not, and I thank every woman Republican, Democrat, or fence-sitter, who have pushed themselves to get ahead. “Some women are becoming the men they always wanted to marry.” - Gloria Steinem
The sad fact is that whatever side you sit on, having a woman run is a gimmick. And it shouldn’t be. We have qualified women and minorities out there, but they’re not being called on to run.
Flag this comment
Pro-Ellen
Sep 12, 2008 8:53 AM CST
The same way they’re not being paid equally in the workforce.
Flag this comment
MommyEsq
Sep 12, 2008 9:12 AM CST
Some women are paid less because we choose jobs or careers within the legal profession that offer more flexibility in exchange for less pay. I personally did make that choice, working in-house rather than for a law firm. I make less money but the trade-off is worth it. The study cited in this article probably does not take into account the hours worked or the choices made; it sounds like it was just a broad overview. I would be interested in reading a more detailed study comparing actual apples-to-apples (i.e., similar billable hours or similar jobs among men and women).
I take offense to comment 32. I supported Clinton in the primary because she and I share many of the same political views and she has actually supported women’s rights. I would not vote for McCain regardless of whom he had chosen for VP. He is not a supporter of women’s rights and neither is Palin (she is merely a beneficiary of the women’s rights movement).
Flag this comment
Jack
Sep 12, 2008 9:12 AM CST
I can only speak from my experience at a mid size law firm in the Midwest in a mid size city (lits of mids). Our firm pays men and women equally for equal work, but overall, men do make more than women at our firm for two reasons. First, we have part time associates and part time partners. They bill less and generate less revenue, therefore, they make less. What’s wrong with that? Second, in general, there are fewer female attorneys between the ages of 50 and 65 (prime earning years) because there were fewer women in law school in the 1970’s and early 1980’s. Now women comprise 50% or more of law school classes. As time goes by, the differences in pay will equal out due to demographics. I would imagine that no matter what market you are in, if you consider the two foregoing factors, there is not much of a difference between men and women in compensation.
Flag this comment
Mike
Sep 12, 2008 9:14 AM CST
To number 20: There is a party of fiscal conservatism and personal liberty. It’s the Libertarian Party. Unfortunately it has yet to get much traction.
Flag this comment
NJ
Sep 12, 2008 9:19 AM CST
Dear “Pro-Ellen”...
What rock have you been living under? Last time I checked the headlines, there is someone running as the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States by the name of Barack Obama. I know you’re too busy fighting for equal women’s rights to realize this, but actually there is a very well qualified minority candidate for president. His name is Barack Obama. I’m voting for him. Certainly not voting for McCain and Palin.
Flag this comment
angry attorney
Sep 12, 2008 9:21 AM CST
I am living proof that male lawyers get paid more than female lawyers for the same exact position. I recently joined a personal injury firm making $60k/ yr. The firm also hired a male associate on the same day they hired me. I am a 2006 graduate. My male colleague is a 2007 graduate. He is getting paid $70k/yr. How do I know? The office manager mistakenly gave me his paycheck. I was furious. What’s more, he and his wife just had a baby and he has been on PAID TIME OFF for the past three weeks and I have been doing both of our jobs!!! What’s even worse, a female partner made the salaray decisions and puts him on a pedastal while I’m placed on the back burner!!!! How can a female do this to another female? Not only do I have more experience than my male colleague, but I’m also a harder worker. Needless to say, I’m looking for another job.
Flag this comment
Pat
Sep 12, 2008 9:22 AM CST
This report is extremely misleading. The problem with the report is that is does not compare apples to apples. The report compares all legal positions. Even comparing just lawyer positions is not a neutral comparison. Women, more than men, take jobs in legal aid and the public sector, which pay notoriously low salaries. Also, women, more than men, take jobs in which they have more time for families, which also pay much lower than large firms, where billable hours are increasingly high. This creates a large discrepancy in the numbers. Compare female attorneys at large firms to male attorneys at large firms and we will likely see a very small discrepancy if any.
Flag this comment
sb
Sep 12, 2008 9:35 AM CST
Statistics—naked statistics—skew understanding when not taken into context. Men and women are attending law school and graduating with JDs at roughly an equivalent rate. Men and women are paid the same for the same job. However, like it or not, more women are taking public sector and other low-paying jobs for several reasons. First, women are often more idealistic and passionate about their work than men, leading them more often to become advocates for the disadvantaged. Second, women often get married, have children, take breaks from work to raise or have children, etc., which interferes with and sometimes completely removes them from their partnership track. Third, married women often view their jobs as “second jobs,” meaning that they don’t need to make the high dollars because the husband’s job is either adequate by itself or enough to support a lower-paying job for her, which allows them to take positions paying less.
I feel sorry for Ms. Barshevsky, and others like her, who mistakenly believe that money and power are the only measures of a woman’s importance, and then spew naked statistics to complain about the “inequality” of the sexes. Those who understand a woman’s true power and importance—the attributes and aspects that make her greater than any man could ever hope to be—won’t be fooled by bald numbers.
Flag this comment
rs
Sep 12, 2008 9:35 AM CST
This study is statistically flawed for too many reasons. Its also flawed logically, a judge depending on state or federal is paid the same regardless of whether the judge is a man or woman. I’m sure if you compare a male federal judge’s salary to a female circuit judge somewhere in the middle of nowhere Wyoming, then of course the male makes more. Furthermore, big firms start associates the same.
Flag this comment
ck
Sep 12, 2008 9:38 AM CST
#10 - you can’t have it both ways, and I’m sure you would have a fit if you were allowed 3 weeks of maternity leave. I’m sure there are far more men on here that have had to work extra hours and cover for a female colleague while she was on maternity leave - not that I have a problem with doing that, but some of you need to take a consistent opinion.
Flag this comment
anon
Sep 12, 2008 9:40 AM CST
The ABA merely prints inaccurate articles like this to incite people like Ellen and other. Ellen, your ability for logical thought is absurd.
Flag this comment
hvb
Sep 12, 2008 9:49 AM CST
sb: you feel sorry for Ellen? I fell sorry for her boyfriend!
This isn’t the first time his opinion has been vetted as if it matters. Poor guy.
Flag this comment
ellen's dad
Sep 12, 2008 9:51 AM CST
We should have aborted her.
Flag this comment
sb
Sep 12, 2008 10:01 AM CST
Speaking of bald numbers, here’s an example of what I’m talking about: My wife has a paralegal degree. She isn’t working outside the home, which means her income is zero. Why isn’t she working? Because I am, and therefore she doesn’t have to so she chooses not to, and she is taking care of our five children, because someone has to do that job. I may be making the money, but her job is the hardest and the most important. Now, when you look at the statistics, you don’t see anything like that, which helps explain the real reasons for the disparity in “average” income, you just see the numbers.
Flag this comment
Jim Eddinton
Sep 12, 2008 10:06 AM CST
@12:
“I call BS on both items. These ‘choices’ do not occur in a vacuum.” No one said they did. Reality imposes itself onto us and the universe does not care about the aggregate results of the choices that people make.
“[...] They occur as a result of policies and practices at law firms…” Of course they do. Just like I told Ellen: you should just hire all women attorneys, and just pay them 250K, regardless of hours billed or hours worked, professional experience, education, location, firm, likability, rain making ability, or anything else.
Why aren’t you?
“[...] in the appointment of judges…” Of it does. You should try to appoint the most experienced lawyers imaginable—not the least—regardless of gender.
“[...] and the utter lack of support in our society for child rearing, among other things.” This is an entirely different discussion. Every single person in this society that chooses to have kids knows in advance about “the utter lack of support…for child rearing,” therefore, that decision is on them. Not some law firm, or any other company.
“Merit too is suspect, when law firms reward only things like billable hours and origination.”
It’s a business. They reward billable hours and origination because that is important to the business. And, of course, you knew that going into it as well.
“Check out the latest NAWL study to find out how flawed these supposed objective categories can be.” Oh yeah, what a great source there. When I’m done with that, I’m going to go ask Exxon about the health of Prince William Sound, and the Klan about race relations in the U.S.
That’s brilliant.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.