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
Did you know that Vietnam's Q3 GDP grew 8.2%YoY and Q2 was 8%? It is one of the few countries in Asia where manufacturing share of GDP is rising even as Chinese imports flood the market. Why?
“In contrast to other countries that are stuck in political paralysis, Vietnam has moved very swiftly to secure lower tariffs and reform its economy to increase productivity and competitiveness,” @Trinhnomics , a senior economist at Natixis SA, said. “This has allowed Vietnam to emerge as a winner under Trump 2.0 despite high tariffs because it’s favored as a foreign direct investment destination for those wanting to diversify away from worsening US-China tensions.”
Look at manufacturing across Asia and what do you see? Its down for India, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia.
But not Vietnam. It's up. The fact of the matter is Vietnam faces a widening trade deficit with China but at the same time it has turned that into an overall trade surplus, which means that Vietnam value add has risen over time.
And you can see it clearly in its manufacturing share of GDP or global market share. Has been slowly steady climb.
This year, in 2025 manufacturing output surged 9.92% in the first nine months of 2025 from a year earlier, with around 77% of companies surveyed by the National Statistics Office saying export orders were higher or at the same level, a sign that US buyers are shrugging off the tariff hit for now.
What is Vietnam doing right? Well, first, the most important thing is that it wants manufacturing above all else. Vietnamese people need formal jobs and by prioritizing that, Vietnam is now focusing on the next leg of development, which is how to ADD MORE VALUE.
Blink and you will miss the biggest reform story of Asia. Vietnam literally redrew its map & made one of the biggest structural reforms in decades.
Rare earth is in the news again. Of course it is not rare, just that you gotta dig deep and then obvs process it. That entire process is polluting, costly and the output itself doesn't yield a lot.
That's how China has captured the market. It's willing to do polluting working and basically sells more not a lot. But having cornered that market, it also sees it as leverage, which it has used since 2010 (with Japan). The weaponization of supply chain is what we call it.
The free market economics of it makes sense for people to just leave it to China to do rare earth & then focus on the more market profitable business. Until, well, dun, dun dun.
So how should a firm or government view rare earth? Should you go and pay HIGHER price than what the Chinese rare earths are going for to then secure resilience of supply chain?
Most say, well, "Nah." That is a costly move because well, others will outcompete you with cheaper Chinese inputs while you go dig and refine your rare-earth magnets. Not an economically worthwhile endeavor.
But not everyone has taken that decision. Here is a story of a company that didn't: General Motors.
Here I summarize the great reporting of the WSJ Jon Emont and Christopher Otts.
As you know, we have known this issue for a long time & Japan knew about it since 2010. So the Japanese usually have about 1 year of this stockpile, just in case. Not the Americans.
The car industry is pretty dependent on rare-earth magnets. GM decided that Covid shocks, which left it with semiconductor shortage, that it should secure non-Chinese rare earth magnets.
This sort of decision takes years to bear fruit so it is one with risks. Why? Well, your competitors can buy cheaper Chinese rare earth while you are trying to get more expensive non-Chinese.
Here we go, as I'll go on TV soon with @JoumannaTV to discuss data, let's take a look at China September trade data that just came out.
September exports rose 8.3%YoY in USD and imports increased 7.4%YoY.
Year-to-date, exports grew 6.1% while imports declined -1.1%YoY.
By destination, China exports to the US fell -16.9% but to Asia rising rapidly.
Exports to India rose 12.9% and India deficit with China is accelerating, with imports not just intermediates for production but also final consumer goods.
Shipment to ASEAN rose 14.7% with fastest growth to Thailand and Vietnam (+22.5% and 22.3%, respectively). The sharp increase of shipment reflect supply chain diversification but also rising imports for domestic demand in ASEAN that also poses challenges to domestic industries.
Exports to the EU rose 8.2% with shipment to Germany increasing +10.5%.
Interestingly, China exports to Russia has fallen this year by -11.3% as Russia puts up curbs to some Chinese exports.
China trade surplus in September:
#1 EU 22.9
#2 USA 22.8bn
#3 ASEAN 17.2bn
#4 India 10.3bn
From winning the Trump trade war, India is now the US President’s biggest target. The Trump administration imposed a 25% tariff on India. To add insult to injury, Trump announced another 25% tariff, effective tomorrow, on the grounds that India imports crude oil from Russia.
Indian goods bound for the US will now face tariff rates similar to China’s if we include the Trump 1.0 tariffs, making any China+1 strategy in India less competitive for US markets, and relative to Southeast countries, which for the most part face tariff rates of about 20 per cent.
Will the additional 25% tariff stick? While Russia’s war with Ukraine isn’t going to end by Wednesday, the secondary Trump tariff is likely temporary. Therefore, the question is not whether India will be able to bring the 50% back down to at least 25%, but when.
Eight months after Trump has been inaugurated and we of course have now the EU US deal. What do we know about Trumponomics?
I would say my read is the Miran paper is a blueprint for Trump actions so far on trade. Let's see what I mean by that. And this has consequences of how Trump sees India, which I think is not just escalation to gain leverage.
First, let's talk about an important ally, the EU. The details are out and I would say this is actually rather good for the EU in the context of out of control Trump tariffs.
Why? EU tariffs are NOT stacked. They are ceilings. As in, they get 15% max, including sectoral tariffs like auto (including car parts), pharma, semiconductor, lumber etc but not steel & alum, which they are still trying to negotiate. There are some additional exemptions for EU products such as aircraft, parts, generic pharmas & ingredients etc.
Meaning, to trade for this 15%, the EU is falling closer into the US orbit via investment and trade as well as defense, which it is working on being more self sufficient with increased spending but not just yet.
Anyway, what can you say about other allies? It means South Korea and Japan can and hopefully have similar terms.
Remember that reciprocal tariffs under IEEPA aren't the only ones. Section 232s are pretty scary and more stuff being added all the time without warnings.
An example is steel where a few days ago 400 more products were added to include steel derivatives.
So if you want to have access, this is basically what the costs are and so what does that tell you about others? Here I go back to the Miran paper.