[PEN-L:11417] Male Chauvanist Math

[Robert Cherry <RobertC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jay Hecht wrote:

"In fact, it was quite evident that the hospital practice at this
particular Big 6 succeeded because the women supplanted the incompetent
males!"

This can be explained in a simple Becker (neoclassical) manner:  Prior to
the hiring of women, incompletent males were hired.  However, once access
was extended, capitalist accounting firms were able to hire the most
productive workers which included many women.  Generally, in the first
stages of integrating the workforce, very talented women are hired.
Not surprisingly, just as in baseball in the 1950s, this would include some
exceptional players.  In a sense, Jay's wife may be the Willie Mays of
hospital accounting!!

   More to the point:  The use of econometrics in is to emphasize central
tendencies and often long run tendencies.  This "makes sense" if one can
ignore the immediate situation or the deviations from the central
tendencies.  Professional men have a greater willingness to do this because
they rarely experience (though they may empathize with) the downsides --
adverse side effects -- of public policies.  A few examples:

1. Marx tended to minimize concerns for the immediate adverse impact of
capitalism on women and children because he focused on what he believed to be
the inherent impact of capitalism dynamics in the long run on their
situation.  While I believe he was absolutely correct in his
prognostications, it is unlikely that many of his contemporary working class
woman would have been so focused on long run dynamics.

2. Paul Krugman makes a somewhat similar point about the present dynamics in
newly emerging industrialized countries where women are being exploited in
the capitalist process rather than in the more feudalistic structures that
previously dominated their employment.  There is a certain logic and
"truth" in what Krugman states because as a central tendency capitalism on
average is improving the economic wellbeing of women.  However, within this
dynamics there are women who will necessarily experience not the central
tendency but the worst abuses.  Again, it is more likely that men will focus
on the central tendency rather than the worst abuses.

   This is the same when we look at economic analysis which posits a
"typical" household or "typical" firm.  Here an example could be NAFTA where
it may be true that on average a typical household would benefit from the
increased world specialization with lower consumer prices.  However, it makes
a difference whether the typical household is comprised of upper-income
professionals or lower-income blue collar workers when we look closely at the
employment effects (which in the aggregate may net out to zero).  Again, do
we focus on the central tendency (male professionals??) or on the adverse
consequences to particular subgroups (female blue collar??).

Robert Cherry/Brooklyn College