1. C H A P T E R Occupational Wage Differentials 8

2. © 2003 South-Western 2 Median Weekly Earnings of Full-Time Wage and Salary Workers in Selected Occupations by Gender, 2001 Table 8.1 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings (January 2002), Table 39.

3. © 2003 South-Western 3 The Compensating Wage Differential for a Disagreeable Occupation Figure 8.1

4. © 2003 South-Western 4 Heterogeneity of Tastes and Abilities and the Size of Compensating Wage Differentials Figure 8.2

5. © 2003 South-Western 5 The Effect of Unemployment and Noncompeting Groups on the Size of Compensating Wage Differentials Figure 8.3

6. © 2003 South-Western 6 Employee Preferences for Wages versus Risk of Injury Figure 8.4

7. © 2003 South-Western 7 Employer Isoprofit Curves Figure 8.5

8. © 2003 South-Western 8 Matching Workers and Firms Figure 8.6

9. © 2003 South-Western 9 Benefits in Employee Compensation, 2001 Table 8.2 SOURCE: Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2001, Table 626.

10. © 2003 South-Western 10 Wage/Fringe Isoprofit and Indifference Curves Figure 8.7

11. © 2003 South-Western 11 The Equilibrium Combination of Wages and Benefits Figure 8.8

12. © 2003 South-Western 12 The Provision of Maternity Leave Benefits Figure 8.9

13. © 2003 South-Western 13 The Effect of Occupational Licensing on Wages and Employment Figure 8.10

14. © 2003 South-Western 14 Percentage of Female Workers in Traditionally Male and Female Occupations in 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2001 Table 8.3 Source: Bureau of the Census, Census of the Population (Washington, D.C: GPO, 1960, 1970, 1980); and Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings (January 2001), Table 39.

15. © 2003 South-Western 15 The Impact of Market Imperfections on the Wage/Risk Equilibrium Figure 8.11

16. © 2003 South-Western 16 Compensating Wage Differentials and Occupational and Employer Social Responsibility Figure 8.12 SOURCE: Adapted from Robert H. Frank, “What Price the Moral High Ground?” Southern Economic Journal 63 (July 1996): 1–17, Figure 2.

17. © 2003 South-Western 17 The Relationship Between Occupational Earnings and Percentage of Females Figure 8.13 SOURCE: Authors’ calculations based on results found in Michael Baker and Nicole M. Fortin, “Gender Composition and Wages: Why Is Canada Different from the United States?,” Mimeo, University of Toronto (September 1998).

18. © 2003 South-Western 18 Distribution of Males, Females, Whites, and Blacks across Occupations, 2001 Table 8A.1 SOURCE: Calculated from Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings (January 2002), Table 10.

19. © 2003 South-Western 19 Duncan Index Measures across Race and Gender Groups Figure 8A.1 SOURCE: Mary C. King, “Occupational Segregation by Race and Sex, 1940–88,” Monthly Labor Review 115 (April 1992): 30–7, Chart 1, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington D.C.

20. © 2003 South-Western 20 Duncan Index Calculations Comparing Race and Gender Groups, 1990 and 2001 Table 8A.2 SOURCE: Calculated from Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings (January 2002), Table 10.

21. © 2003 South-Western 21 Duncan Index Measures of Occupational Segregation across Gender for Different Countries, Different Years Table 8A.3 SOURCES: a Zafiris Tzannatos, “The Industrial and Occupational Distribution of Female Employment,” in George Psacharapoulos and Zafiris Tzannatos, eds. Women’s Employment and Pay in Latin America, Latin America and the Caribbean Technical Department, Regional Studies Report No. 10 (Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, 1991): 3.1–3.22. b Susan Horton, “Marginalization Revisited: Women’s Market Work and Pay, and Economic Development,” World Development 27 (1999): 571–82. c Hang-yue Ngo, “Trends in Occupational Sex Segregation in Hong Kong,” International Journal of Human Resource Management 11 (April 2000): 251–63. d E. Boulding et al., Handbook of International Data on Women (New York: Sage, 1976). e J. J. Dolado et al., “Female Employment and Occupational Changes in the 1990s: How Is the EU Performing Relative to the US?” European Economic Review 45 (2001): 875–89.

22. E N D