TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Why secretary is still the top job for women

32 点作者 esalazar超过 12 年前

9 条评论

andrewdubinsky超过 12 年前
Much of this article describes the central element of the pay discrepancy between men and women.<p>Men are more willing to work in unpleasant jobs (e.g. truck driver, garbage collection). These jobs pay well because they are unpleasant.<p>Men are more willing to work in remote environments. (e.g. Alaska, North Dakota). Everyone wants to live it NYC or West Hollywood. It's great lifestyle. No one wants to live in Odessa, Texas.<p>Men are more willing to accept dangerous work where the chance of workplace injury is high (e.g. construction, mining, fishing, manufacturing).<p>These locations and the jobs they provide suck. They are long hours with high risk of injury, often outdoors, or away from family in places no one willingly chooses to live. Often these jobs include persistent exposure to harmful chemicals.<p>For identical jobs, men and women still have a pay discrepancy and that should be addressed. However, simply saying that women are paid less on average fails to capture the whole story.<p>In defense of men, most of the jobs lost in the recent recession were jobs held by men.
评论 #5145609 未加载
评论 #5146445 未加载
评论 #5145827 未加载
评论 #5146783 未加载
UnoriginalGuy超过 12 年前
To me, a "secretary" is someone who would sit at a desk near an entrance, greet people, and maybe answer the phones. Maybe also have limited "PA" or "AA" jobs (calendar management, send faxes, type e-mails/letters verbatim, minimal paperwork, etc).<p>Which still largely exists at the entrance to many companies/businesses, but doesn't really exist as often in the context of a personal or corporate secretaries.<p>Now, the article argues that these people still exist but that the name has changed. I disagree, I think the expectations have changed. Companies expect this individual to do more than just greet people and answer calls - they have to have a brain. They have to contribute.<p>For example an "administrative assistant" of a big executive might not only have to answer calls and greet people, but might also have to draft e-mails, speeches, and similar only to have the executive sign off on them. They might also have to work with other departments to get things done (things the executive themselves used to do).<p>So an "administrative assistant" at least from my perspective is almost a junior executive themselves. They have the same kind of role.<p>Now "personal assistant" is a non-executive/administrative role. But what a "PA" does varies widely from company and executive. I mean some PAs are literally doing things like collecting dry cleaning and having the executive's car services (and, yes, this IS in the job description) while others are just glorified "secretaries."<p>I think what it really boils down to is that people, in the West, are far too expensive to just have them for the sake of it. In this day and age they're expected to contribute more for less, or they're surplus of requirements.
评论 #5145214 未加载
评论 #5145056 未加载
评论 #5145256 未加载
评论 #5145510 未加载
dmor超过 12 年前
It bugs me that they lump executive assistants in here. From my experience they are so far from secretaries (I know several who are making 6-figures in this job too), from what I've seen most EAs are usually more like an apprentice who wants to get into a competitive field and needs to shadow someone with a very specific skillset and responsibility to get there. That's why assisting magazine editors, fashion designers, finance executives, even tech executives is so promising for women (and men) right out of college. I once heard someone say that they thought most of the early EAs from Amazon.com would probably go on to be CEOs in their own right.
评论 #5146001 未加载
评论 #5146104 未加载
zavulon超过 12 年前
&#62; The top job for American men, for example, is truck driver.<p>Really? I have trouble believing that. All I could find is articles like this: <a href="http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/10/31/employers-desperate-to-fill-truck-driving-jobs/" rel="nofollow">http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/10/31/employers-desperate-...</a>
评论 #5146512 未加载
PeterisP超过 12 年前
Is it? During my work life, I've noticed the virtual elimination of secretaries/exec assistants as a job position. 20 years ago, most bigcorps had a secretary for every Boss-type, and a secretary or two as 'greeters'/office managers in every large office site.<p>When I left a local bank (~500 employees) a year ago, they had only 1 'secretary' at all - a single executive assistant that covered the 7 board executives there. Everything else was covered by automation, DIY electronic calendars, outsourcing of things like plane reservations, etc.
alex_c超过 12 年前
So, why is secretary still the top job for women?
评论 #5145823 未加载
评论 #5146166 未加载
adekok超过 12 年前
This article repeats the statistic that "Across all industries and occupations, full-time female workers earned 78 cents to every dollar a man earned in 2010."<p>That's phrased misleadingly. The truth is the <i>median</i> wage for full-time female workers is 78 cents of the <i>median</i> wage for full-time male workers. The difference in phrasing is important. Statistics are hard.<p>The explanation is given in this video:<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwogDPh-Sow" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwogDPh-Sow</a><p>When you compare workers with equal experience, equal education, and equal training, the pay gap pretty much disappears. This claim can be correlated with laws against gender discrimination. It's <i>illegal</i> to pay women less than men for the same work.<p>If the "78 cents" statistic was true as phrased above, most women would have grounds to sue for gender discrimination. Since those lawsuits aren't wide-spread, the discrimination isn't wide-spread either.
DerekDawn82超过 12 年前
I think we all know why:)
评论 #5145183 未加载
rikacomet超过 12 年前
4 million is the figure for the top job? America has 300 million people when I last checked, third highest in the world.<p>Its about capacity also, and not always women being disallowed opportunity. If you ask yourself, why at least 40% of world CEO/CFO/Presidents are not women, its not always due to women being denied fair opportunity, but also, because there is not enough candidates that eventually are able to go that high. Also, it is also the choice. Such articles are something I very much disagree with because they present things as: "because women are not CEO's in majority of corporations of the world, it must be because they are being denied fair opportunity". which is not always true, because it is also about choice. A lot of people, with capacity to do much more, still decide to do something, under their capacity, because of one universal truth called Love.
评论 #5145648 未加载