Why do we judge gender equality by certain jobs that we deem more useful to society than others (banking vs teaching or nursing vs being a mom? Women & men start out the same if not women ahead in men in college enrolment but then diverge as they choose diff majors & life choices
From my experience in universities & working, women choose what they like & not forced to focus on more “relationship oriented” education & career choices.
They tend to focus on the humanities & for those that actually enter professions that are more # based, leave b/c...
Only 9% of the nursing population is male & it is a female dominated profession by a ratio of 91%.
In teaching, women make up 76% of total.
Of course these are not economically rewarding jobs but they are socially very rewarding & noble.
Why do women choose these jobs? For various reasons but likely because of biological differences between men and women that dictate them to value relationships more (teaching allows you to have the same schedule as ur children & a very meaningful profession).
Whereas banking?
In banking, many graduates of banks start out with a relatively decent gender ratios. By this I mean not retail banking but investment banking. But the long hours & the grueling aspect of it require a certain type of people to persist. Some do. For for many women, they leave. Why
For one, they probably don't enjoy the material (monetary + status) aspect of it as much as men & care more about the relationship aspect, as in will I be able to spend time with my family & if I choose to have one I'd have to have children (pregnancy, post birth & raising kids).
Most women that I know that succeed in high-level jobs have supportive husbands that take up the other half of child rearing etc because someone has got to do it. If u are career driven, u marry someone who is complimentary.
Or they don't have kids or even a partner b/c well...
None of these choices are good or bad. But if I believe that a woman that wants it all (material things like money & status as well as relationship such as a husband & children & friends) would have to make wise choices so that she can have the support system to be female & hunt.
But we forget that not all women want to hunt & compete in a very aggressive environment & want to just select a mate that would do that for them & then focus on the one job that makes them indispensable: being a mother.
And we shouldn't judge them. That's what they want & like.
In most banks/organizations, u don't see female MDs/head b/c of many reasons but include:
*Women, even if good & success at their job, choose to leave to have jobs that allow them to be both a caregiver & also a career
*Women decide that they don't like reward/costs not worth it.
Career women face different choices than men: She has to decide whether she wants kids & if so must find a mate & have children & that takes time through the biological process.
Even w/ a support spouse (say stay at home husband), only women can give birth so she still needs to.
That means she faces the biological constraint even if she has the same set up as a man (a spouse that is supportive & will do the caregiving) because she has to carry the baby to term, make sure the baby survives before she can pass it off to her partner.
A man doesn't do that.
Companies are increasingly better at accommodating this biological fact as they want more women represented because, let's be honest, we think more holistically & are very good analysts of risks & rewards.
Offer maternity leave & even flexible work schedules. Things improving.
Women will be more represented in professions that were more difficult for women to have it all than before.
That said, a woman sees the world slightly different than a man because she has to make choices much earlier based on her understanding of herself & needs.
And...
Should she upon reflection of her skills, desire, ambition & tolerance of hunting choose to have a life where she wants to teach & have children & spend a lot of time with them, then we shouldn't expect her to be a man.
This is my problem w/ feminism. They want women to be men.
Look, at some point, our career will peak. My take is it is either in our 30s, 40s, or 50s. Perhaps some peak at 60s.
Either way, you are expected to retire and so when that happens whether u were a central banker or not wouldn't matter but your investment in your relationships
Do we judge a human based on monetary & status or the impact they have left behind to others?
Women live longer than men?
Women do because we value the things that matter & invest in them: relationships & communication.
We don't make poor choices, we're just not men.
Btw, women shouldn't try to be men. We are fine as we are. But if we want to have it all like we think that men do (a successful career w/ plenty of $, status, respect & power, a family (spouse, kids etc), then we need to be smart.
Have a partner that supports & wants the same!
Did you know that teaching used to be a male dominated profession? It was considered a stepping stone for a greater career in the law or the church until the 19th century.
The introduction of Common School (pre public school) required more workers beyond male & so women joined.
Here is an interesting fact regarding teaching, which is a female dominated profession:
76% of teachers are women & 54.2% of principals but only 24% of them are superintendents.
Why the gap even in a profession that is dominated by women?
People say women simply are not applying for the high-pressure but highly compensated job.
Unconscious bias on the part of those who make hiring decisions, a lack of a strong candidate pipeline, & a paucity of female role models & networking opportunities surface as reasons
So?
To become a superintendents, you must apply & women don't apply if they don't meet the qualification 100% while men would at 60%.
Got an issue of good candidates not applying. The 2nd issue is the road to become a superintendent is very, well, long & competitive & require focus.
Profile of a superintendent: like a graduate degree in education (MA or PhD), former principal (preferably at a middle or HS not elementary school) & assistant superintendent.
Then u have to apply for the job to get the job. Along the way, somehow, only 24% of women are there.
Stats on principals (prequisite to be a superintendent:
68% women in elementary school
40% women in middle school
33% women in HS.
The Gate Foundation funds an effort to raise this ratio & they focus primarily on getting women to apply for the job (many don't) & some progress.
The ratio of women applying for the superintendent job if they don't quality has risen. Here are some fun facts about women superintendents: they are more likely than men to have children in school. Diff b/n a teacher & a superintendent is salary + influence (individual v system)
Lower gender ratio of women in a field that we dominate highlights:
*Top jobs require singular focus on career (yrs of education to the graduate level + sticking around/focused to get the top job in ur profession)
*Women that make it have support system (spouse, mentor)& apply.
This article has a great video of 6 women that made it & what it takes to have the top job (a lot). The key pt they make here is having a mentor (someone to help guide & strategize career path) & focus, as is wanting & doing what it takes to be there.
Btw, just because men make it to the top jobs doesn't mean that MOST MEN do.
By definition, a top job = extremely competitive & few. So most men don't make it.
The US has 44 male presidents so only 44 men made it to the top job. They don't represent the average man in the US.
If you only look at the gender ratios at the top & miss the gender ratio on average, then we are also skewing the discussion of gender equality.
What we mean is gender equality at the top & not true gender equality of outcome b/c an average man is likely worse off than women.
According to the WHO, "Women generally live longer than males – on average by 6-8 yrs. This difference is partly due to an inherent biological advantage for the female, but it reflects behavioural differences between men & women."
All of this is dependent on how u benchmark.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Let's talk about India today. I'll be on @CNBCi at 11am HKT to discuss this particular issue.
First, we all know that India is amongst the least trade exposed and least exposed to the US amongst the big traders.
That being said, the US is the MOST lucrative export market and one it MUST grow if it wants to GROW OUTWARD AND UPWARD through trade.
Why? Look at China PPI today - it's is -3.6%YoY. Look at the Chinese yuan. It is not appreciating like crazy versus the USD. So what? China manufacturing is TOO competitive and will COMPETE with India so exporting to China is not a HIGH MARGIN BUSINESS.
That is the same for everyone who is a big trader. China is a competitor. So fierce that even the Chinese government is struggling w/ this onshore deflated PPI situation so you can see why foreign competitors are pissed off.
First, let's zoom in - India's export as a share of GDP is roughly 2.5% of GDP in 2024. As mentioned, 0.8% is exempted now (pharma, electronics etc). But EXEMPTIONS ARE TEMPORARY. Today, we got threats of 200% tariffs on pharma for example.
Anyway, 1.3% of GDP faces 10% tariff now that will go up to 26% by 1 August if not successfully negotiated down.
India is not too exposed by Trump auto and steel but still somewhat.
Let's look at top 15 exports to the US.
#1 PHARMA, currently exempted but faces sectoral tariffs of a lot.
Look at what India exports to China - ZERO. Zero pharma. 3bn to the EU and 9bn to the US.
So here, you can see that INDIA NEEDS A DEAL.
You can go through all the sectors. Note something. In phones, the EU is a bigger market than the US. Yes 8bn vs US 7bn.
But the EU is not a country but made up of 27 countries. So the US is the LARGEST market by a long shot.
Look at all the ZEROS for China for top items. Not a good market for India.
As promised, here is a thread on Trump trade war and what Asian countries are going to do or shall I say who has more room to give Trump a deal than others.
@Trinhnomics interview at 17 mins.
First, let's start with one certainty: Trump tariffs are higher, and they are on sectors (50% steel, 25% alum, 25% auto & more under study), countries (China 20% fentanyl, Canada & Mexico 25% fentanyl w/ USMCA qualified products 0%, and of course 10% reciprocal tariffs on everyone w/ extension ending 1 August for everyone & China 9 August.
Okay, so what?
Okay, let me first discuss the below chart that summarizes the impact on Asia and why different economies will have different negotiating priorities with the Trump administration.
First, big picture. Exports to the US as a share of output (GDP) of respective countries.
Vietnam is the most exposed by a long shot to the US. And that explains why Vietnam was most motivated to climb down from that 46% level to 20% now (40% for transshipment - we discuss later).
Exports to the US was 30% of GDP in 2024. Yep, that high. Good news? more than 10% of GDP was already exempted as Vietnam's largest export was electronics, namely phones, and thus that was exempted.
The rest enjoy 10% until 1 August and then 20% tariff. On a sectoral level, Vietnam faces 50% on steel and 25% on auto but as a share of total, not a big deal, even if not good for those sectors.
Yes, it has been a while. I have been running around the world & Asia. It was nice seeing so many people and places to share views, but my inner nerdling self fundamentally enjoy sitting at desk listening to music to read and analyze. For those that I got a chance to meet, thank you! People make the world go around - we all yearn to understand our reality & seek to be understood.
Anyway, shall we review first half? And perhaps think about second half 2025, which starts Tuesday next week.
First, we live in a Trump world. By that, we can't escape his decisions, pushing, wanting.
What does he want? That is a question I get a lot. And most people tend to response with this, "He probably doesn't know it himself."
I don't agree. He does. He's clear about it. It's how he gets there and the people that he surrounds himself with to execute it is a big if but not what he wants.
I'll put three things that Trump wants and basically got so far despite everyone calling him TACO (Trump always chickens out).
Three things Trump wants:
a) Tariffs - he likes tariffs. He sees it as a tool to get what he wants, which is to grow US industrial prowess & rebalance US trade. We can disagree on whether this is the right tool or subsidies or industrial policies are better. But tariffs he wants and he gets.
People think TACO is the trade. But tariff is the trade. It's higher. You accept this new normal fine.
I'll give you an example. We got 50% on steel. 25% on aluminum. 25% on auto. +25% fentanyl on Mexico and Canada excluding USMCA products. +20% on China.
And +10% on rest of the world. For China, expires August. For rest of the world, 9th July. Probably gonna get extended.
Happy to be back in Hong Kong! The world is on fire, this time, the threat of war widening beyond just Israel and Iran but to the US and that means the gulf.
Meanwhile, Japan sees core inflation rising to 3.7%YoY and this forces the BOJ to hike (it really doesn't want to for many reasons) as it struggles with policy response - note that inflation has been higher than 2% for so long while policy rate is only 0.5%.
So who is most affected by this whole conflict? Well, we all in different ways but the most obvious outcome is oil. Let's take a look.
We Asians IMPORT 69% of oil going through the Straight of Hormuz and the Saudis export the most.
First, let's go through what's happening. Iran has been attacked by Israel and has shown that it is weak. Now that it is weak, it will have to fight back strongly or risk being seen weak.
So it's a question of how it will surrender not whether and when. Will it do that to the US or Israel? It will fight first. Second is the US, will they take this opportunity to wipe out the threat of Iran nuclear power?
If the US is involved, there is a chance of this widening out as US assets in the region will be targets.
Hence the question of the Straight of Hormuz.
20% of global oil consumption flows through the Strait of Hormuz. It is a narrow channel so if that gets choked up, we're looking at a big oil supply shock.
Who's affected? Producers - the gulfs like Saudi, Kawait, UAE.
Who are the importers? Asians, namely China, India, Japan, South Korea. They make up 69% of total imports.
Happy to be back in Asia. Paris was great for many reasons - but mostly because the vibe in Europe is much better as people feel more empowered by change that allows people to zoom out from usual distress over political stalemate, even if challenging.
What do I tell clients? Well, the same as I usually do. When you look at data, don't get fixated on a point in a series. Non-farm payroll/jobs data is an example. Markets get so fixated on what the expectations are & whether results are a beat or not. But what we should look at is a trend over time. Revisions happen. Downward revisions or upward. Seasonality happens (strikes/weather/etc). But what does the trend tell you & what does that mean for policy reaction function?
Well, if you zoom out, then what we see is that job gains are SLOWING in the US. And labor market data is lagging.
The ISM, both manufacturing and services, both point to slowing activity.
Meanwhile, we have CPI coming out in May - markets expect 2.5%YoY from 2.3% in April.
So what? What will le Fed do?
Inflation is an interesting figure. Why? Because it mirrors what Trump's doing on tariffs and also the dollar going lower, which means imports cost more now.
Both tell you that US goods inflation should rise over time. But what does that mean for US CPI? Well, most weights for US CPI is housing/services, which are non-tradeable in nature.
So while US CPI is rising, the Fed will want to see if core PCE is rising. Anyway, if employment is softer over time, and inflation is rising, doesn't that constraint the Fed from seeing through the fog and know what to do?
Trump tariffs. Where are the powers coming from? Well, he has a menu of tariff options. It's the only tax that the president can incur without congress.
For Reciprocal Tariffs, he used the International Emergency Economics Power Act (IEEPA), which has an advantage of SPEED and SCOPE but disadvantage in FOUNDATION or legality.
Why? Well, he declared that the TRADE DEFICIT is the national emergency.
The US Court of International Trade said that he MISUSED the IEEPA, as in the foundation of the "emergency" is not right.
Trump team knew this. They know the laws. They decided for SCOPE and SPEED. What happens next?
Well, they appeal. And eventually, it will be the Supreme Court that will decide. But the foundation of his "emergency" was always being questioned.
Irrespective, for markets, there was already a Trump put, and a clear one. He himself sees these "reciprocal tariffs" as maximalist positions anyway.
Remember that he has other powers to choose from. Section 232 has a STRONGER FOUNDATION but takes a while. You need consultation and etc so it takes time.
The +25% steel & aluminum tariffs for example is from Trump 1.0 and he's just removing exemptions + raising alum from 10% to 25%.