Statistic of the Day

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Statistic of the Day
15
Mon, 04-12-2004 - 8:52am

In 1991, 1 out of every 143 women who worked made $100,000

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 04-12-2004 - 9:01am
I think that a big part of it is simply inflation. There were many more jobs that paid $100,000 in 2001 then there were in 1991. Also in comparing individuals many could be in the same profession when both statistics were taken but in the early stages of that career in 1991 and hitting thier high earning years 10 years later.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-03-2003
Mon, 04-12-2004 - 10:02am
I'm curious how many of those are women who don't have kids?

I'm also curious how many of those women work in fields where the starting salaries have skyrocketed, as the starting legal salary has jumped huge levels since 1991. The average here in Dallas has just about doubled in that time. (From the time I accepted my job at the end of second year in law school until the time I started work about 11 months later the first year package for Texas firms went up by between $15K-$25K, depening on your firm. That change alone pushed a number of people over the $100K mark.)

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 04-12-2004 - 10:04am
I've been meaning to ask you - you had your oldest child during (before?) law school?

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-03-2003
Mon, 04-12-2004 - 11:05am
I didn't know I was pregnant when I took the LSAT and applied to law school. (I was finished my masters and decided on law school versus a phd in slavic linguistics.) ODS was born eight weeks before my 1L year began. (Dh and I both started law school at the same time. But I am much too competitive, so we agreed to go to different schools. We lived off of scholarships and student loans.) Ds went to daycare at a small school near my law school. He was in day care for 8 hours a days, four days a week. (No class on Friday.)

I never had a problem studying with a baby. But I'm not one who needs to rush off to the library just to study. I also don't do study groups. Dh was in a study group, but the two times he needed to care for ods when I had to do library research, his study group just met at our apartment.

Our first summer, ods stayed in daycare, I worked for a juvenile law clinic, and dh clerked for the federal public defender's office. The summer that I clerked at BIGLAW, dh stayed home with ods. I also clerked for the firm 30 hours per week during my 3L year, and my 3L year is the year I interned at the Texas Supreme Court. It was a busy year, but I quit law review after my 2L year, so it wasn't so bad. Ds still only went to day care four days a week, and we always picked him up by 4 pm. I loved those days. We'd go to the park for an hour every afternoon after class.

I found out I was pregnant with mds the day of my last law school exam. I was pregnant for the bar exam and started work fulltime the end of July. I had been working for the firm on a parttime basis ever since my 2L summer. I had mds that December. (I would never recommend for anyone to have a baby their first year associate year.) The firm hated me for doing that. It was awful, nasty. The illegal comments they made, the retaliation. It was so bad that I literally would throw up in the mornings from the stress of having to go to work every day.

But as mds was born with major heart defects, I didn't have the option to just quit. (Dh went solo straight out of school, so we had no health insurance if I were to quit work. Plus, between two law derees and my MA, we had around $300K in student loan debt, all sources combined.) I waited until I had finished my second year, and decided to start looking elsewhere to lateral. But, even though I was breastfeeding and on the mini pill, I got pregnant with dd. I decided to stay through the end of that pregnancy, since I wasn't about to interview while pregnant and go through the whole newly hired and pregnant thing again. I started interviewing while on maternity leave with dd. (Never mentioned having kids, maternity leave, or anything about family to my headhunter or interviewing firms, of course.) I started my new job when dd was four months old. They didn't find out I had kids until I'd been here for almost 6 months.

The evil firm was the worst experience, jobwise, I could ever imagine. BIGLAW does not like pregnant attorneys. The stress they put me through in my last pregnancy actually led me to have a seizure at court when I was 8 months. That thankfully landed me on doctor ordered bedrest until I was emotionally ready to deal with them again--after dd's birth. But I couldn't quit until I found something new with insurance. We couldn't buy private insurance that would cover mds, and since his first surgery cost over $500K, there was no way we'd allow him to be uninsured.

I'm glad I did BIG EVIL LAW, as it got me where I am today: small office, international firm, litigation boutique. But other than getting to know jorvia (it always helps to know an employment attorney when your employer illegally discriminates against you), there's not much positive I took away from there, except for lessons learned and naivety lost. It is still very much a man's world, good old boys club. And they like their women thin, blonde, childless, and silently working in the background, for the most part.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 04-12-2004 - 11:16am
I've always admired the strength of your POVs and your unique perspective (even though I certainly don't agree with all of your positions).

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 04-12-2004 - 12:26pm
I'll speak for Chicago, not SLC, which is a bit behind the times. I think that the 90s saw a huge transformation in the working woman. WOmen began to demand a work/home life balance. As I was joining the Big 6(then) bandwagon, we were seeing women made partners at huge rates, and I think that is what started the roll of the snowball. SUddenly, women at every level were being able to choose a career path that suited their family needs. There were part-timers, flex-timers, telecommuters. During busy season, they used to provide weekend child-care programs in-house to help the moms that needed to come in to crank out those last minute financials or that last minute return. Bringing your child to work with you during the week was no longer "taboo" either. I remember when I was a senior, there were two managers i worked for that would bring their babies to work with them- they'd put them to sleep in a pack and play in their office and we'd whisper about ERISA regulations and 5500s. They'd nurse in their offices, or there was a special mother's room on each floor for mom's who needed to pump in privacy. There were a few old school partners that retired early because their mentality was getting them in hot water with the newer, younger, and more liberal partners. But it wasn't just women that were seeing a change. The men started seeing the benefits of a work/home life balance. I remember men partners that would leave for children's programs or men that started bringing their children to the office when needed, and men that started to say, hey, it's 6 o clock....... I'm going home to eat dinner with my family and spend time with them and we can either come back to the office at 10 to finish it, or wait until the morning. I think it was all of these things that kept women in the workplace. Whereas before, they'd quit upon having a baby, they now saw a way to balance both. I sure did. I actually went in to resign because I was still a senior when I was pregnant with ds#1 and didn't think they wanted a part time senior (all the other pt-ers were management). They begged me to stay and the partner-in-charge's exact words were "we'll bend over backwards to have you come back after your baby"........ and they did. They were incredible. Now, of course, I did transfer to SLC and that all went to pot. This city and their particular office of that firm are parked somewhere 25-30 years ago and it was a true struggle and hence my venture into sole proprietorship. But I know their attitude and family friendly mentality in Chicago made me what I am today, a mother proving that you can have both!
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-28-2003
Mon, 04-12-2004 - 1:45pm
It's probably that a $100,000/yr salary isn't that unusual anymore. But it's probably also that more women are going into the traditionally "male" professions.

I don't know whether "those women" would have pushed for better othercare *in general.* They could afford to pay top dollars for great quality care for *their* children. I don't think that they were forming picket lines to improve the quality of care for other children.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
Mon, 04-12-2004 - 4:26pm
I think women who make $100K or more are more likely to hire personal help, like a nanny to care for young children or a housekeeper to watch over the school-aged children, rather than other child care alternatives. And I thought the demand for high-quality nannies had gone up in the past ten years, at least on the coasts. (The other idea I had was that many of these women may have spouses who choose to be the SAHP, more so than mothers who make far less.)

Women who can afford the best are not the ones most likely to help in the improving quality child care options for the masses. They probably skip the whole "problem" and hire the absolutely best nanny they decide they can afford. And that only helps the nanny's future employer by providing her with more experience (or "hurts" the future employer by making her very expensive!)--not a substantial improvement in child care across the board.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 04-12-2004 - 4:28pm
Where is the other half of the stat...that to do with men? Its not all that meaningful all by itself.

Othercare options and availablity have improved steadily, as far as I can see, over the last 37 years. They've continued to improve over the last 10. Babies and toddlers regularily take the computer train downtown with Mom and Dad to take advantage of some very decent dc centers. There is an emergency care facility in my downtown office complex. My kids attend aftercare which incorporates a martial arts program. None of this was avail when my first was born. I have even seen...and this really hit home because I can just see me in this role...grandparents, still in the workforce, very professional type people, taking the young grandchild downtown with them to the daycare in their workplace. Heck why not.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-03-2003
Mon, 04-12-2004 - 4:43pm
And thank you for that wonderful trip down memory lane. ;)

Actually, my experiences working at BIG EVIL LAW have greatly affected who am today and how I view work and career. If anything, I am even more "I am here and I am not moving, so get out of my way or deal" than I was before. I really, really like work now. There was a time after dd was born where I look for any possible way to just quit firm life, but financially, it just wasn't feasible. I'm glad I stuck it out, because I really like what I do (except this week--I got sucked into a CERCLA project) and I'm also good at what I do.

Sometimes I wish I'd waited to have my kids. And sometiems I wish I'd waited to start my career. But most of the time, I really do like the way that my life has turned out, for the most part.

Pages