Wages and Compensation

Abstract

This paper gives an overview of the various common forms of wage and compensation. These include various forms of income, fringe benefits, and other forms of deferred compensation. In detailing some of the complexity of researching economic well-being through compensation, the paper calls for the young researcher to go beyond the analysis of annual income. Combining the various forms of compensation with factors such as race and gender that correlate to disparities in pay and access to high- paying jobs, the author constructs a list of variables that should be considered when approaching the issues of wage, compensation, and economic well-being.

Keywords Income; Fringe Benefits; Minimum Wage; Restricted Stock; Salary Sacrifice; Stipend; Stock Options; Transfer Payments; Wealth

Wages & Compensation

Overview

The two primary factors sociologists use in measuring economic well-being are income and wealth. Traditionally, income — payments an individual receives from a job or transfer program during a calendar year — is the primary tool utilized. This is because the relevant information routinely gathered by the US Census is readily available for researchers. Some have argued that this approach is too narrow and does not take into consideration the ability of an individual or household to withstand economic hardships such as loss of a job, prolonged illness, or death of a family member. To this end, some sociologists also take into account wealth. Wealth, the value of everything an individual owns less what the individual owes, allows individuals and households to withstand periods of economic hardship until they can reestablish a level of income or adjust their standard of living to current income levels. The level of wealth needed to withstand a prolonged period of hardship is outside of the reach of most Americans. For most people, the ability to build wealth is greatly determined by wages and compensation. Unfortunately, most Americans do not earn enough to create significant wealth outside of the equity in their homes. What an individual can afford and how much an individual can save from their income often have a great deal to do with other forms of compensation. Health insurance, short-term disability, and long-term disability are forms of compensation that can help an employee withstand the economic hardship of prolonged illness. Without these forms of compensation (usually not measured in income or wealth), an individual can quickly lose savings, home, and other assets.

Analyzing wages and compensation to understand how most individuals build wealth and secure economic well-being isn't as straightforward as measuring income. Elements of compensation such as medical benefits, memberships, stipends, meals and lodging, stock options, and deferred compensation are often not reported as income. These fringe benefits can significantly improve an individual's wealth and economic well-being. Finally, when considering wage and compensation, it is important to look at the roles race and gender play in individual earnings and economic well-being. This paper outlines various forms of wages and compensation that must be taken into consideration when attempting to understand issues around economic well-being.

Applications

Salaries & Wages

The primary difference between a salary and a wage in the United States economy is that salary is paid for a period of time without regard to the number of hours worked and a wage is calculated based on an hourly rate or in a piecemeal manner. The Fair Labor Standards Act exempts salaried employees from minimum wages and overtime guidelines. To be classified as an exempt employee, that employee must be an executive, professional, outside sales person, commissioned sales person, computer professional, driver, loader, mechanic, farmer on a small farm, or a seasonal worker working at a seasonal or recreational business opened less than seven months a year. Because of the number of executives, professionals, and sales people among salaried employees, the difference in income between salaried and wage employees is substantial. Additionally, salaried employees are more likely to receive other forms of compensation.

One of the primary concerns of the Department of Labor is to make sure that low-compensated employees are not treated like exempt employees by companies. A non-exempt employee is protected by regulations that require a minimum wage be paid and that overtime is paid. Abuse of the exempt/non-exempt status of employees carries a hefty fine from the Department of Labor.

Overtime & Minimum Wage

Overtime is for many employees a two-edged sword. On one hand, overtime wages are a valuable source of additional income, and many employees come to depend on the extra pay in paychecks. On the other hand, overtime can be abused by employers. Research shows that too much overtime can lead to stress, poor health, obesity (Lallukka et al., 2008), and poor well-being at home (Golden & Wiens-Tuers, 2008). The guidelines for overtime were laid out in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. In the United States, each state has the option to set its minimum wage at or above the federally required minimum wage. Research shows that immigrant workers tend to avoid states with low minimum wages, and native workers who do not complete high school tend to suffer more adverse employment effects in these states (Zavodny, 2008). Other issues concerning overtime include employers' attempts to work wage employees more than forty hours per week without paying the overtime premium. In response to this practice, the Department of Labor fines employers for each incident of not properly paying employee overtime.

Stock Options & Restricted Options

Stock options and restricted cash are two other forms of compensation usually associated with executive compensation. Though some companies do offer employee stock option (ESO) plans, stock options are more closely associated with executives. Restricted stock is almost exclusively offered to executives.

A stock option is a contract offered to an employee that grants the employee the right to purchase company stock at a fixed price (the "strike price"). The holder of the stock option is usually given a period of time (duration), usually ten years, in which to exercise the option. The idea is to align the efforts of the employee with the performance of the company. The option increases in value if the company’s stock price goes up over time, as the employee is able to buy the much more expensive stock at the strike price in their option contract. Also, the gains on the stock purchased are taxed at a much lower capital gains rate than the income tax rate. On the other hand, if the stock price drops, the option need never be exercised.

Restricted stock is granted with conditions to an employee as part of his or her compensation. The stock cannot be sold until a certain period of time elapses and specific performance levels are attained. When the conditions are met, the stock is granted to the employee. Unlike stock options, the employee receives the full value of the stock. The value of the stock when granted is treated as income and taxed accordingly. Any future gains on the restricted stock are treated as capital gains for tax purposes.

Fringe Benefits

Fringe benefits are a significant part of an individual's compensation, about 31.4 percent of an individual's salary or wages in as of September 2015, and play a significant role in improving one's economic well-being (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015; Graves, Sexton, & Arthur, 1999). Fringe benefits include both legally required employer-paid benefits and discretionary employer-paid benefits. Legally required benefits paid by an employer, matching the amount deducted from an employee's pay, includes workers' compensation, state unemployment programs, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Legally required benefits have been put in place to create a social safety net for those who encounter economic hardship. Discretionary fringe benefits include health insurance, short- and long-term disability, life insurance, retirement plans, paid leave, day care, and other perquisites.

Workers' compensation provides income and medical assistance to workers injured on the job. Unemployment payments are made solely by employers. Unemployment payments are based on the employer's history of having ex-employees file unemployment claims. Social Security provides retirement income, disability benefits including income and medical care through Medicaid, and widow/widower benefits. Social Security contributions by employee and employer are capped annually, ceasing for the year once an employee exceeds $118,000 in income, according to the Social Security Administration (2015). Medicare provides medical assistance for the elderly.

Discretionary fringe benefits have a greater immediate impact on economic well-being than required fringe benefits. For example, employer-provided health insurance is a significant financial benefit. A reasonably comprehensive health insurance plan purchased for a family could cost between $400 and $1,000 per month, a figure that many families could not afford on their own, without the significant subsidies offered by employer health plans. By 2015, employees were paying, on average, $4,955 of the $17,545 average annual premiums for their employer-sponsored family plans, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's annual Employer Health Benefits report, and the Affordable Care Act of 2009 sought to expand employer-sponsored coverage to workers at companies of fifty employees or more (NCSL, 2014). Studies have shown that lapses in insurance correlate with poor health and long-term habits of putting off preventative care, physician visits, and follow-up or recommended care for chronic conditions, with long-term effects on well-being (Bednarek & Schone, 2003; Sudano & Baker, 2003; Sudano, Baker, & Albert, 2002).

Short-term disability, long-term disability, and life insurance are both offered at an employer's expense, or at an employee's expense based on employer's choice. The advantage of having an employer offer the benefit is that an employee can benefit from the large-scale buying power of the employer and not have to take a physical to qualify for plans they otherwise might not be able to acquire on their own. Retirement plans include pensions, 401(k) plans, and profit sharing plans. Most of these plans include an employer contribution. Also, in response to a growing female workforce, a few employers offer paid family leave and day care. Paid leave is a benefit greatly desired by working parents, and seen by some researchers as a significant issue in creating well-being (Figart & Marangos, 2008).

Finally, there are perquisites, or "perks." These include supplemental income, stipends, cars, meals, lodging, cell phones, health club memberships, and contract severance packages. These perks are usually reserved for executives, though some managers may enjoy use of company cars and cell phones in their work. Supplemental pay can be in the form of a supplemental executive retirement plans (SERP). SERPs provide retired executives a lifetime payment, usually 50 to 80 percent of their average annual income. SERPs, like the executives' employment contracts, are binding and, unlike an employee offer letter, give executives the type of security and economic-well being most workers cannot imagine. A stipend is a fixed amount given to employees to cover certain expenses related to their job with the company. In return, the employee will track their own expenses on these specific business- related items, such as mileage and membership fees in organizations that can benefit the company, and net expenses against the stipend on their tax return.

For some executives and many university presidents, stipends far exceed expenses and serve as just another way to increase income without increasing salary.

Severance is another discretionary benefit. Many companies offer employees severance based on tenure, but since severance is not contracted, it can be offered or not based on the employer's willingness to pay given the company's current financial condition. Severance is also used to mitigate the risk of a terminated employee taking legal action against an employer. Many executives have contracted severance packages know as "golden parachutes." These packages ensure relief from the economic hardship of losing a job. Some researchers suggest that severance is often over-compensation for employees who will soon find a new job (Grund, 2006).

Some researchers believe that fringe benefits enhance compensation for highly paid employees, but actually create a salary sacrifice for lower paid employees. The idea is that wages may be cut or future raises limited if an employer is required to offer employees more benefits.

Bonuses, Incentives, Commissions, & Profit Sharing

In addition to salary and wages, some employees receive bonuses, incentives, commissions, and profit sharing. How these additions to income are paid is significant. Sales people working with low base salaries must earn commissions and incentives in order to receive adequate pay for the time and effort they put into their work. Incentives and commissions in this manner are part of an employee's monthly income and are usually included in the individual’s budget for paying monthly bills. It is much different when bonuses, incentives, and profit sharing are paid on an annual basis. In these instances, an employee's standard of living is in line with their monthly compensation, and the annual payments come as a windfall allowing the employees to pay down debts and save. Additionally, bonuses have been shown to improve employee retention and improve company morale and quality of service (Nisar, 2006).

Tips

Tips are one of the most under-reported income sources. They are also one of the most difficult for sociologists and economists to account for in their research. Since many tips are paid in cash, there is no way for the employers to track all tips collected by employees. Additionally, since reported tips are taxed, employees are economically motivated to under-report their cash tips. The effect of this is substantial for the tipped employee. As an example, a hotel doorman who pays 25-percent federal tax on each additional dollar earned receives over 90 percent of his or her income through cash tips. If the doorman only reported half the tips, then every dollar pocketed that is not report saves the employee nearly 33 cents on the dollar (the tax rate plus their FICA contribution). For each $1,000 not reported, the bellman will have over $300 in additional cash to spend. Granted, most employees who receive tips do not receive such a large portion of their income from cash tips. But the same benefits are proportionally accrued for the cash tips they do not report.

Transfer Programs

Also included in income are transfer payments. This includes transfers from other individuals and the government. Forms of transfer payments include spousal support, child support, unemployment payments, farm transfer payments, disability payments, and welfare programs such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Aid to Families with Dependent Children, energy assistance, and earned income tax credits. Government transfer programs are not reported in the earnings of the Current Population Survey.

Government transfer payments are at the center of a debate among researchers about poverty. The debate focuses on two issues. The first is whether transfer payments entrench the recipients in poverty. Some researchers believe the data says yes (Defina, 2008) and others believe the data says no (Englander & Jane, 1992). The second issue is whether these payments slow the United States economy.

Wealth

Wealth, the value of everything an individual owns less what the individual owes, is not easily understood when attempting to evaluate the dispersion of income in an economic system. The reason is that wealth can build while not generating income. For the masses, this might be seen in the equity of their home and the compounding of returns on their 401(k) plans. In 2010–11, the wealthiest 1 percent in the United States earned 19 percent of all adjusted gross income, but they owned about 35 to 37 percent of all wealth (Sahadi, 2014; Smialek, 2014). About a decade earlier, the top 20 percent of Americans earned 59 percent of annual income, but controlled 91 percent of the wealth (Wolff & Leone, 2002). The wealthiest 10 percent of Americans owned 86 percent of investment wealth (business equity, stocks, security, investment real estate, etc.). These assets ensure income and at the very least access to cash during the most difficult economic times. Wealth, unlike most forms of income, can be inherited and kept intact across generations. The gap between the share of income and share of wealth shows some of the shortcomings in only measuring income when considering wages, compensation, and economic well-being.

Viewpoints

Race

In considering wage and compensation, a researcher cannot avoid the issue of race. Racial minorities in America are more likely to earn less and have access to fewer forms of compensation besides wages. According to the US Census, African Americans and Latinos can expect to only earn a portion of what whites earn, are less likely to have health insurance, and are more likely to be poor (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, & Smith, 2007). In fact, in 2014, African Americans' median income was only $35,398; whites’, $60,256; and Latinos', $42,491; in contrast Asian Americans’ was $74,297 (DeNavas-Walt & Proctor, 2015). Additionally, African Americans and Latinos are less likely to obtain high-paying occupations that extend a wide array of fringe benefits (Fronczek & Johnson, 2003). Any analysis of American wages and compensation is incomplete without some recognition that racial inequality is still a significant factor in understanding the issue.

Gender

Women face some unique forms of discrimination related to wages and compensation. They experience a wage gap nearly as wide as that of racial minorities, having earned a median income only 79 percent that of men in 2014 (DeNavas-Walt & Proctor, 2015). They also are less likely to obtain high-paying positions that extend a wide array of fringe benefits (Fronczek & Johnson, 2003). Furthermore, 16.1 percent of all females in the United States were living in poverty in 2014, as compared to 13.4 percent of all males (DeNavas-Walt & Proctor, 2015). Of the 9.5 million households living below the poverty line in 2014, 4.75 million (just over half) were headed by women (DeNavas-Walt & Proctor, 2015). When working women were surveyed about what they would do if they had more time, 50 percent answered that they would work a second job (AFL-CIO, 2002). When surveyed about the most important changes they would like to see at work, answers included a safe workplace, a workplace free of violence, paid leave, and an end to sexual harassment (AFL-CIO, 2002). These are changes that don't make the list for men. This is the unique challenge that women face. Not only do they face a wage gap and glass ceiling, but the workplace norms and values are masculine and do not reflect their needs and desires. Additionally, many of the fringe benefits extended to highly compensated employees reflect masculine values. Tickets to sporting events, country club memberships, and stipends for having a few beers with the clients are just a few. Wages and compensation contribute to a greater sense of well-being when the workplace and the fringe benefits better reflect the values of the employee.

Conclusion

The study of wages and compensation and, ultimately, economic well-being goes far beyond the measure of reported income. This paper outlines the many forms of compensation and some of the factors sociologists need to consider when attempting to analyze inequality in wage and compensation. In addition to the federally mandated benefits that form a safety net for disabled and elderly Americans, many companies offer health insurance, disability, and life insurance to their employees. The biggest difference in compensation comes in the number of fringe benefits and the very high level of the compensation associated with these benefits extended to executives. Bonuses, stock options, restricted cash, SERPS, and severance packages can represent millions of dollars.

The roles of unions, nonprofit organizations, and the government as employers of civilian and non-civilian Americans also has substantial influence on the understanding of wages, compensation, and economic well-being. Additionally, changing tax law and corporate America's responses to these changes by creating new benefits for its most highly compensated employees continues to evolve. What is clear is that the social researcher still has many fertile areas to work in to increase our understanding of wage, compensation, and economic well-being.

Terms & Concepts

Income: Payments an individual receives from a job or transfer program during a calendar year.

Fringe Benefits: Forms of compensation other than cash payments. These include insurance, retirements, memberships, stock, and others.

Minimum Wage: The lowest amount that an employer can pay an employee for a hour of work; set by the federal government, with higher minimums in some states.

Restricted Stock: A form of compensation that allows an employee to receive a grant of company stock when certain performance thresholds have been met.

Stipend: A fixed amount given to an employee to cover certain expenses related to their job in the company.

Salary Sacrifice: The idea that wages are suppressed when benefits to employees are increased.

Stock Options: A form of compensation that allows an employee to buy stock in the future at a guaranteed strike price.

Transfer Payments: Payments given to an individual from income generated elsewhere. Usually associated with welfare programs.

Wealth: The value of everything an individual owns less what the individual owes.

Bibliography

AFL-CIO. (2002). Ask a working woman. Washington, DC: American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations.

Bednarek, H. L., & Schone, B. S. (2003). Variation in preventative service use among the insured and uninsured: Does length of time without coverage matter? Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 143, 403–419.

DeFina, R. (2008). A comparison of poverty trends and policy impacts for working families using different poverty indexes. Journal of Economic & Social Measurement, 32(2/3), 129–147. Retrieved June 27, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=27971291&site=ehost-live

DeNavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B. D., & Smith, J. (2007). Income, poverty, and health insurance in the United States: 2006. In Current Population Reports, 60–233. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

DeNavas-Walt, C., & Proctor, B. D. (2015, September). Income and poverty in the United States: 2014. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-252. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Retrieved January 26, 2016, from https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdf

Englander, F., & Kane, J. (1992.) Reagan's welfare reforms: Were the program savings realized? Policy Studies Review, 11, 3–23. Retrieved June 27, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=11446023&site=ehost-live

Figart, D. M., & Marangos, J. (2008). Introduction to living standards and social well-being. Review of Social Economy, 66, 1–5. Retrieved June 27, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=31730336&site=ehost-live

Fronczek, P., & Johnson, P. (2003). Occupations 2000: Census 2000 Brief. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. Retrieved July 12, 2008 from: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-25.pdf

Gittleman, M., & Pierce, B. (2015). Pay for performance and compensation inequality: Evidence from the ECEC. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 68, 28–52. Retrieved January 8, 2015 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=100001007&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Golden, L., & Wiens-Tuers, B. (2008). Overtime work and wellbeing at home. Review of Social Economy, 66, 25–49. Retrieved June 27, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=31730334&site=ehost-live

Graves, P. E., Sexton, R. L., & Arthur, M. M. (1999). Amenities and fringe benefits: Omitted variable bias. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 58, 339–404.

Grund, C. (2006). Overcompensation by severance payments. Applied Economics, 38, 925–930. Retrieved June 27, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=20855178&site=ehost-live

Haley-Lock, A. (2013). Waiting tables for a living: How employers and geography affect working conditions. Focus (01955705), 30, 30–35. Retrieved November 13, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=91562610

Keefe, J. (2012). Are public employees overpaid? Labor Studies Journal, 37, 104–126. Retrieved November 13, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=72037319

Lallukka, T., Lahelma, E., Rahkonen, O., et al. (2008). Associations of job strain and working overtime with adverse health behaviors and obesity: Evidence from the Whitehall II Study, Helsinki Health Study, and the Japanese Civil Servants Study. Social Science & Medicine, 66, 1681–1698. Retrieved July 12, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=31377690&site=ehost-live

Nathan, F. (1987). Analyzing employers' costs for wages, salaries, and benefits. Monthly Labor Review, 110 3–11.

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2014, March). Health insurance: Premiums and increases. Retrieved January 8, 2015, from http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/health-insurance-premiums.aspx

Neumark, D., Ian Salas, J. M., & Wascher, W. (2014). Revisiting the minimum wage-employment debate: Throwing out the baby with the bathwater?. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 608–648. Retrieved January 8, 2015 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=96322300&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Nisar, T. (2006) Bonuses and investment in intangibles. Journal of Labor Research, 27, 381–395. Retrieved July 12, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=21808494&site=ehost-live

Perlberg, S. (2013, September 17). American median incomes by race since 1967. Business Insider. Retrieved January 8, 2015, from http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-median-income-in-the-us-by-race-2013-9

Ritter, J. A. (2013). Racial and ethnic differences in nonwage compensation. Industrial Relations, 52, 829–852. Retrieved November 13, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=90133883

Sahadi, J. (2014, April 4). The top 1% and what they pay. CNN Money. Retrieved January 8, 2015, from http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/04/pf/taxes/top-1-taxes

Shin, T. (2011). Why has CEO compensation increased so much? A comparison of economic and institutional explanations. Conference Papers — American Sociological Association, 57. Retrieved November 13, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85657585

Shin, T. (2014). Explaining pay disparities between top executives and nonexecutive employees: A relative bargaining power approach. Social Forces, 92(4), 1339-1372. Retrieved January 26, 2016 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=96094175&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Smialek, J. (2014, August 7). The 1% may be richer than you think, research shows. Bloomberg. Retrieved January 8, 2015, from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-06/the-1-may-be-richer-than-you-think-research-shows.html

Sudano, J. J., Baker, D. W., & Albert, J. M. (2002). Loss of health insurance and the risk for a decline in self-reported health and physical functioning. Medical Care, 4011, 1126 –1131.

Sudano, J. J., & Baker, D. W. (2003). Intermittent lack of health insurance coverage and use of preventative services. American Journal of Public Health, 931, 130–137. Retrieved July 12, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=8859794&site=ehost-live

United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015, December 9). Employer costs for employee compensation news release text. Retrieved January 8, 2015, from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm

United States Census Bureau. (2013). Table 4. Poverty status, by type of family, presence of related children, race, and Hispanic origin: 1959 to 2013. Retrieved January 8, 2015, from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/families.html

Wolff, E. N., & Leone, R. C. (2002). Top heavy: The increasing inequality of wealth in America and what can be done about it. New York, NY: New Press.

Zavodny, M. (2008). The effect of minimum wage on immigrants' employment and earnings. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 61, 544–563.

Suggested Reading

Barnes, C. M., Reb, J., & Ang, D. (2012). More than just the mean: Moving to a dynamic view of performance-based compensation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 711–718. Retrieved November 13, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=75324754

Butler, R. J. (1999). The economics of social insurance and employee benefits. New York, NY: Springer.

Cha, Y., & Weeden, K. A. (2014). Overwork and the slow convergence in the gender gap in wages. American Sociological Review, 79(3), 457-484. Retrieved January 26, 2016 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=97191070&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Hays, S. (2004). Flat broke with children: Women in the age of welfare reform. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Kay, I., & Van Putten, S. (2007). Myths and realities of executive pay . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Mrkvicka, N. (2014). Benefit trends. Benefits Magazine, 51, 8–9. Retrieved January 8, 2015 from EBSCO online database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=96898401