The shift to stock-based compensation and gender inequality in wealth in the United States
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study identifies a novel explanation for gender inequality in wealth in the USA; namely, the important role of stock-based compensation. Since the financialization of the US economy, American firms increasingly offered workers compensation based in part on company stock, and 23 per cent of private-sector employees now have stock-based compensation. Analysis of the Survey of Consumer Finances data suggests that stock-based compensation promotes greater wealth accumulation than regular wages, but its wealth benefits are higher among men than women, especially at the top of the wealth distribution. Also, this study finds that men, on average, receive more stock-based compensation than women, and the gender gap is explained by job characteristics and sociodemographic attributes. Finally, analysis of the National Bureau of Economic Research survey of employees with stock-based compensation shows that men are more likely to utilize its wealth-building potential than women, thus contributing to gender inequality in wealth.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it