Tomás Martinez
@tomasmartinezzz.bsky.social
Assistant Professor at Insper. Mostly macroeconomics and labor in en/pt/es.
https://tomasrm.github.io/
https://tomasrm.github.io/
In the paper, we go deeper into the details and also explore the role of the first job.
You can find the paper here:
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Comments are welcome!
You can find the paper here:
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Comments are welcome!
Gender and Top Lifetime Earnings Inequality: Ten New Facts from Brazil
This paper presents ten new facts on gender and top lifetime earnings inequality in Brazil, drawing on rich administrative data covering nearly the entire forma
papers.ssrn.com
January 7, 2025 at 1:56 PM
In the paper, we go deeper into the details and also explore the role of the first job.
You can find the paper here:
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Comments are welcome!
You can find the paper here:
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Comments are welcome!
The other difference is job hopping.
Men switch jobs more often than women during their lifecycles. However, women experience higher wage gains when they do switch.
Women need bigger incentives to switch jobs, a sign they might be not willing to move or are more risk-averse.
Men switch jobs more often than women during their lifecycles. However, women experience higher wage gains when they do switch.
Women need bigger incentives to switch jobs, a sign they might be not willing to move or are more risk-averse.
January 7, 2025 at 1:56 PM
The other difference is job hopping.
Men switch jobs more often than women during their lifecycles. However, women experience higher wage gains when they do switch.
Women need bigger incentives to switch jobs, a sign they might be not willing to move or are more risk-averse.
Men switch jobs more often than women during their lifecycles. However, women experience higher wage gains when they do switch.
Women need bigger incentives to switch jobs, a sign they might be not willing to move or are more risk-averse.
This changes at the top 0.1%!
The top 0.1% earners are mostly managers, regardless of gender.
To truly reach the top, managerial roles in the private sector are key, but women still face barriers to breaking into these positions.
The top 0.1% earners are mostly managers, regardless of gender.
To truly reach the top, managerial roles in the private sector are key, but women still face barriers to breaking into these positions.
January 7, 2025 at 1:56 PM
This changes at the top 0.1%!
The top 0.1% earners are mostly managers, regardless of gender.
To truly reach the top, managerial roles in the private sector are key, but women still face barriers to breaking into these positions.
The top 0.1% earners are mostly managers, regardless of gender.
To truly reach the top, managerial roles in the private sector are key, but women still face barriers to breaking into these positions.
The type of occupation matters!
Women who reach the top 1% are more likely to work in the public sector as public auditors, prosecutors, or members of the government in general.
On the other hand, men in the top 1% are much more likely to work as managers in the private sector.
Women who reach the top 1% are more likely to work in the public sector as public auditors, prosecutors, or members of the government in general.
On the other hand, men in the top 1% are much more likely to work as managers in the private sector.
January 7, 2025 at 1:56 PM
The type of occupation matters!
Women who reach the top 1% are more likely to work in the public sector as public auditors, prosecutors, or members of the government in general.
On the other hand, men in the top 1% are much more likely to work as managers in the private sector.
Women who reach the top 1% are more likely to work in the public sector as public auditors, prosecutors, or members of the government in general.
On the other hand, men in the top 1% are much more likely to work as managers in the private sector.
What are the sources of this gender gap at the top?
One possible cause is that women work less than men.
Labor force participation is important to prevent women from reaching the top 1%, but once they reach the top, they work as much as men.
There must be something else…
One possible cause is that women work less than men.
Labor force participation is important to prevent women from reaching the top 1%, but once they reach the top, they work as much as men.
There must be something else…
January 7, 2025 at 1:56 PM
What are the sources of this gender gap at the top?
One possible cause is that women work less than men.
Labor force participation is important to prevent women from reaching the top 1%, but once they reach the top, they work as much as men.
There must be something else…
One possible cause is that women work less than men.
Labor force participation is important to prevent women from reaching the top 1%, but once they reach the top, they work as much as men.
There must be something else…
The gender gap is pretty high at the top. The share of women in the labor force is about 38%, but in the top 1% is only 25%, and in the top 0.1% there is only 15% of women.
The glass ceiling is real, and it’s especially pronounced in Brazil.
The glass ceiling is real, and it’s especially pronounced in Brazil.
January 7, 2025 at 1:56 PM
The gender gap is pretty high at the top. The share of women in the labor force is about 38%, but in the top 1% is only 25%, and in the top 0.1% there is only 15% of women.
The glass ceiling is real, and it’s especially pronounced in Brazil.
The glass ceiling is real, and it’s especially pronounced in Brazil.
It is not surprising that lifetime earnings inequality is stark in Brazil.
The top 1% earns about 166k BRL per year for over 26 years, the top 0.1% earns an astonishing 310k BRL PER YEAR!
The top 1% earns about 166k BRL per year for over 26 years, the top 0.1% earns an astonishing 310k BRL PER YEAR!
January 7, 2025 at 1:56 PM
It is not surprising that lifetime earnings inequality is stark in Brazil.
The top 1% earns about 166k BRL per year for over 26 years, the top 0.1% earns an astonishing 310k BRL PER YEAR!
The top 1% earns about 166k BRL per year for over 26 years, the top 0.1% earns an astonishing 310k BRL PER YEAR!
Hence, we look at lifetime earnings, the earnings of 26 years of working in the formal sector.
Few papers look for a panel that long, so we are able to document the extent of lifetime income inequality, the work trajectory of these workers, in which occupation they worked, etc.
Few papers look for a panel that long, so we are able to document the extent of lifetime income inequality, the work trajectory of these workers, in which occupation they worked, etc.
January 7, 2025 at 1:56 PM
Hence, we look at lifetime earnings, the earnings of 26 years of working in the formal sector.
Few papers look for a panel that long, so we are able to document the extent of lifetime income inequality, the work trajectory of these workers, in which occupation they worked, etc.
Few papers look for a panel that long, so we are able to document the extent of lifetime income inequality, the work trajectory of these workers, in which occupation they worked, etc.
The gender gap depends on decisions and shocks that are dynamic and cumulative (children, unemployment).
Thus, looking at the cross-sectional distribution of income often overlooks the extent of inequality.
Thus, looking at the cross-sectional distribution of income often overlooks the extent of inequality.
January 7, 2025 at 1:56 PM
The gender gap depends on decisions and shocks that are dynamic and cumulative (children, unemployment).
Thus, looking at the cross-sectional distribution of income often overlooks the extent of inequality.
Thus, looking at the cross-sectional distribution of income often overlooks the extent of inequality.
O principal problema é usar uma equação de identidade como uma equação causal.
Se eu mudar as importações não dá para saber se o PIB vai aumentar ou diminuir, talvez nem mude.
Para saber isso você precisa de uma teoria econômica + hipóteses e não uma equação contábil.
Se eu mudar as importações não dá para saber se o PIB vai aumentar ou diminuir, talvez nem mude.
Para saber isso você precisa de uma teoria econômica + hipóteses e não uma equação contábil.
September 29, 2024 at 7:50 PM
O principal problema é usar uma equação de identidade como uma equação causal.
Se eu mudar as importações não dá para saber se o PIB vai aumentar ou diminuir, talvez nem mude.
Para saber isso você precisa de uma teoria econômica + hipóteses e não uma equação contábil.
Se eu mudar as importações não dá para saber se o PIB vai aumentar ou diminuir, talvez nem mude.
Para saber isso você precisa de uma teoria econômica + hipóteses e não uma equação contábil.
O paper do Winberry já mostrava que era possível, não? Acho que é mais uma questão de implementação user friendly.
September 26, 2024 at 4:45 PM
O paper do Winberry já mostrava que era possível, não? Acho que é mais uma questão de implementação user friendly.