# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
HE MAY have Moneypenny on his side - but Daniel Craig is no moneyspinner for Hollywood film producers. The James Bond actor, 49, has emerged as one of the least bankable British stars in Hollywood, while Oscar-winner Daniel Day-Lewis is the most profitable. For every pound spent on Craig's blockbuster films - such as Spectre,...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Hundreds of thousands of young people are in the process of applying to university, in time for a 2018 start. Their choices can make a huge difference to future earnings.

For most university graduates, having a degree pays.

In England, higher tuition fees mean that, on average, students graduate with debts of more than £50,000 - much more than their counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

But repayments are only one of many factors which affect how much money graduates will have in their pockets in years to come.

Five years after graduation, average annual earnings for students who were taught at the London School of Economics, Imperial College London and University of Oxford are more than £40,000.

At the other end of the scale, there are several institutions - many of them dance and drama colleges - where average earnings after five years are closer to £15,000.

Importantly, many of the differences here are not down to the universities themselves.

They have different average earnings partly because students aren't all the same - they have different abilities and interests.

Entrants to Oxford, LSE and Russell Group universities start their degrees, on average, with better exam grades, for example.

The big decision about what to study at university can be very important for future earnings.

Five years after graduation, the income gap between students who studied the subjects that attract the highest and lowest salaries can be considerable.

Graduates of medicine and dentistry earn an average of £46,700, while those who studied economics take home £40,000.

These figures are about double the average wages of creative arts (£20,100), agriculture (£22,000) and mass communication (£22,300) graduates.

Crucially, these differences are smaller, but remain significant, even when students with similar A-level grades are compared.

As careers progress the gaps get bigger, with graduates of the high-earning subjects pulling even further away.

For example, students of law, economics and management subjects at the London School of Economics do extremely well, with 10% of male graduates earning more than £300,000 by the time they are in their early 30s.

Sexual inequality

A number of factors influence graduate earnings long before they get as far as choosing which course to study, or which university to attend.

In particular, the reality is that male graduates earn more than female graduates.

The gap can already be seen only one year after graduation, when men earn an average of £1,500 (8%) more than women per year.

After five years, the gap has increased to around £3,500, or 14%.

This is likely to continue to increase with age, but it should be noted that this gap is less than half that experienced by non-graduates.

Some - but by no means all - of this difference can be explained by differences in subject choices, with women more likely to choose courses with low earnings potential.

For example, creative arts, nursing, psychology and social science all have far more female than male students, while the opposite is true for architecture, computing and engineering.

However, a large part of this difference cannot be explained away by personal choice.

Rich vs poor

The social background of students also matters.

Those from better off households are much more likely to go to university.

They are also much more likely to go to more selective universities.

That is a large part of the reason why male graduates from households with incomes above £50,000 earn about 20% (£7,000) more than their university peers from lower income households, by the time they are in their early 30s.

Among women, there is a 16% (£4,000) gap between these households.

Remarkably though, even when comparing students who did the same subject at the same university, those from the richest households still earn around 10% more than their peers from less affluent backgrounds.

This suggests improving access to university alone is not enough to address issues of social mobility.

Never-ending debt

The increase in tuition fees to £9,250 per year in England has significantly increased the level of debt students graduate with - and the repayments many will make over their careers.

Most will in fact not pay back all of the cost of their tuition, with the taxpayer picking up the difference.

Recent changes have offered some respite to those who go on to have low earnings.

Graduates only ever have to pay 9% of their income above a given threshold, regardless of the size of their debts.

The threshold will rise from £21,000 to £25,000 in April 2018, putting more money in the pockets of significant numbers of graduates.

It also means that more than 40% of graduates are now expected to repay less than they would have had there been no changes to the student loan system since 2011.

And, for eight out of 10 graduates, it is likely that they will get to the end of their working lives having never paid off that loan.

This analysis piece was commissioned by the BBC from an expert working for an outside organisation.

Charts produced by Becca Meier

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The degrees that make you rich... and the ones that don't

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hundreds of thousands of young people are in the process of applying to university, in time for a 2018 start. Their choices can make a huge difference to future earnings. For most university graduates, having a degree pays.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Discrimination-in-the-Workplace - Tutor2u real life examples

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The gender pay gap is the measured difference between male and female earnings, usually expressed as a percentage of male earnings. In the UK, the gender pay gap across all full-time and part-time work is around 20%.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Norway leads push for gender equality but has a long way to go

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Time to make this a relic.

It recently emerged that there were more men named John running large companies in the US than women. Actually the US is about average when it comes to the percentage of women it has on boards - 19%. Japan does badly with women holding just 3% of board seats, but Norway has one of the best records with women holding 35.5% of the seats on Norwegian stock index companies.

Norway's success at having such a relatively high percentage of women on boards is largely a result of the country's introduction of quotas. There has been a great deal of debate over whether or not quotas are a good way of addressing gender imbalance on boards, but Norway provides a real-life example how this works.

In 2003 the Norwegian government passed a law that requires companies to have at least 40% of company board members to be women. In place since 2006, it stipulated dramatic regulatory measures for non-compliance. After an initial grace period of two years for existing companies, a failure to achieve the 40% quota would lead to the company being delisted.

The initial reactions in Norway were strong and overwhelmingly sceptical, and arguments elsewhere opposed to quotas mirror those raised in Norway in 2006. They range from the principal, such as the unfortunate tampering with free market mechanics, to the practical, such as the severe lack of qualified women.

But now, the quota law has largely become a non-issue in Norway. We present an insider's view on some of the major cultural and organisational trends affecting the introduction of a quota law.

Company performance

There have been many dubious statistics used to show how introducing quotas will detrimentally affect company performance, but we find most of this work tenuous and a tad sensationalist. The sample size is often small and the time horizon short with many other strong factors such as the financial crisis ignored.

A loud argument against board quotas was a lack of qualified female candidates, as well as the lack of women that wanted these types of positions. To the first argument, as long as the qualification was something as narrow as "past corporate leadership in the same or nearby sector", the playing field was indeed very narrow, as there simply weren't (and still aren't) many past female corporate CEOs to go around. But we know how good necessity is at fostering innovation, and that is exactly what it did.

Criteria widening - not weakening

Nomination committees and owners were forced to broaden the criteria, and many new and interesting board candidates appeared, including younger female specialists, in technology, finance, law or some other field highly relevant to companies' strategy. This has even broadened the board recruitment field for men, as more young men with international and entrepreneurial backgrounds appear on boards now. Another important effect of the gender balance law is that it has resulted in diversity beyond gender to include different backgrounds, edutcation and experience.

There are studies that show women directors have higher formal education than their male counterparts. Sociologist Vibeke Heidenreich has shown how finding suitable women with interest in board work proved to be relatively easy. They were recruited from similar arenas as men without previous board experience - professional networks.

There was an initial rush for the few highly-networked women perceived as qualified by old standards, and a few women got multiple directorships. But, there are now four key clusters of well-educated and qualified women entering the boardroom. These are:

1. Younger women, with experience from consultancy, well-educated, highly knowledgeable and with supporting mentors

2. Highly experienced business women without non-executive experience actively seeking directorships

3. Women with broad experience from national and international politics

4. Experienced women with past pre-law broad experience, both executive and non-executive.

The important thing is they are all qualified, just not in the traditional way. And, the increased use of professional recruiters and experienced nomination committees to find candidates is reducing the dominance of networks. They are often charged with the task of finding candidates with alternative profiles beyond the circles of the "usual suspects".

Statoil

Knock-on effects

Another lesson learned from Norway's quota law is that gender balanced boards also spread to companies where it was not enforced. The gender representation law affected two types of companies: all publicly-owned enterprises and all PLCs in the private sector. No rules have yet been proposed for privately owned limited liability companies. However, the focus on improved selection processes and nominating more women, has led to increased diversity across all companies. This is the case in both private and public, and both commercial and non-profit sectors.

Anecdotal evidence shows that the new boards are more dynamic, more open and more innovative than the old ones. This is supported by research demonstrating that increased diversity and more women on boards has the potential to increase firm innovation and board effectiveness more broadly.

More than a nudge needed

Societal change is hard. If the change requires a significant change in culture over relatively short time, nudging and encouragement are not enough. The Norwegian case shows that negative incentives create a sense of urgency and provide the necessary motivation to increase the number of women on boards.

Fairness is relative. When the playing field is skewed with strong historical and cultural biases hindering change towards a more equitable use of the talent pool, incentives such as the quota law can establish new role models and new, more effective standards.

Board gender quotas should no longer be seen as a radical concept nor a shock to regulatory or economic systems. Norway shows how the policy can be a realistic and successful tool that created real improvements in the way companies are run and achieve greater gender parity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lessons from Norway in getting women onto corporate boards

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It recently emerged that there were more men named John running large companies in the US than women. Actually the US is about average when it comes to the percentage of women it has on boards - 19%.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Wage Determination in a competitive LM - Anforme

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Not enough food. Can't heat your home. No bed. Can't pay the rent. Can't afford bus fare into town. Can't afford a friend over for tea. Living in fear of your washing machine or fridge breaking down. Can't sleep because your mind is on fire with stress and worry. These experiences have become all too common in our country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, we work to speed up and support the transition to a future free from poverty, in which people and planet can flourish.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Footballer Nurse Real Wage Real Wage Quantity of Labor Quantity of Labor S D

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wage differentials Footballers vs Nurses Male vs Female Regional differences Ethnic minorites Imperfect Labour Markets Labour Market Imperfections Complete the table for premier league footballers and nurses Labour Market Imperfections Each worker is unique: different skills mean different MRP different supplies of different types of labour Labour Market Imperfections Market

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Labour Demand Factors affecting Demand Elasticity of Labour Demand Labour Market Equilibrium Perfectly competitive markets Labour Demand Labour Demand How much labour will a firm demand in the short run?