Thanks for sharing, Bostonian.
A few more excerpts from this
47-page report, which I find interesting...
"
social skills matter, at least for men, to orders of magnitude that are about half of the impact of education"
"
The cohort studied here was born in the early years of the last century, when women had a fundamentally different role in the labor market and society than women do today... Women with postgraduate degrees, however, saw earnings gains that were similar to men’s in terms of signs and relative magnitudes... On the other hand, the most highly educated women were
much less likely to be married. This lower propensity to marry represents an additional cost to post-graduate education for women of this cohort."
"
Men with low emotional stability (high scores of Neuroticism) are not punished when they are highly educated."
The "
wage penalties to agreeableness" remind me of another article I read some time ago which stated that more compliant (agreeable) children were more likely to be bullied; if bullied the article suggested that a child be taught
- NOT to acquiesce, but to take a firm stand on issues,
- to maintain healthy and appropriate personal boundaries rather than letting others encroach (as one might allow with a close friend).
In this sense, being paid more for being less agreeable appears logical.
"
In the generation immediately following the Terman women, Conscientiousness is generally associated with higher earnings"
and
"
More extraverted women with at most a college education benefit greatly in terms of family earnings, coming from two positive effects: more extravert women are more likely to marry than introverts, and if they do they marry husbands with higher earnings"
...
are excerpts which seem, to me, to help explain what used to be called the generation gap. The economy, the local jobscape, and the ways in which these and other factors make demands which shape society, may change drastically from generation to generation driven by negative and positive forces such as war, scientific breakthrough, etc. Regarding this specific time in US history, the image of Rosie the Riveter comes to mind.
Keeping the age of the Terman longitudinal study in mind, I dislike the perspective presented by the Bloomberg article, as it seems to ignore timing/context and present the correlations as truisms... as though these correlations are causations and may be relied upon as rules of thumb in today's economy and jobscape... or possibly even be predictive for today's children in tomorrow's economy.
