|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 20 2017 11:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 10:55 Gahlo wrote:On July 20 2017 10:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 20 2017 09:33 mozoku wrote:On July 20 2017 09:18 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 20 2017 09:11 mozoku wrote:On July 20 2017 08:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 20 2017 08:52 mozoku wrote:On July 20 2017 08:30 KwarK wrote:
Not sure if sarcastic or genuinely asking why nobody has started a company with a business plan reading "hire women, pay them less". Why is that any more ridiculous than "hire H1-Bs, pay them less"? If the level of extremity for some reason bothers you (as opposed to just being condescending), why are consulting firms male-dominated? By far the largest cost in that business is people, but consultants at the Big 3 have 70/30 male/female gender splits. Reverse that to 30/70, pay them 10% less, and you've reduced your total labor costs by 4.2%. Seems like an obvious move, doesn't it? My eyes don't tell me that sexism is causing women to be paid less. My brain tells me that women often take a career gap mid-career, are (on average) less aggressive in social situations (unfavorable in most occupations), and culturally are less pressured to be career-driven. Women are, on average, better at multitasking but worse at focusing exclusively on a single task (i.e. work). These are real cultural and biological factors that would presumably affect women's pay in the aggregate. Why is it necessarily "sexism" instead of these factors that explain the pay gap? "I see it with my eyes" is not good enough evidence. Because it's male dominated and they have to deal with male egos. Would you take a negotiation on a multi-million/billion dollar cause seriously if a woman represented the other firm? Probably not. But a male counterpart would probably get that deal done and have the respect of the other party. It's as simple as that. Women aren't less effective at those things, they are viewed that way. You're a prime example of why it's so hard for them to get their fair due in the corporate world. Uhhh, you're aware that there are women CEOs, and still 30% of the consulting business is women, right? Clearly, women can compete with and outperform men. There are female partners at consulting firms, and female directors as well. The issue is I raised is whether they do so on average. If cultural and biological factors don't affect genders differently, why are so many college majors so imbalanced along gender lines (when each person chooses what to study)? On July 20 2017 09:04 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2017 08:56 Danglars wrote:On July 20 2017 08:52 mozoku wrote:On July 20 2017 08:30 KwarK wrote:
Not sure if sarcastic or genuinely asking why nobody has started a company with a business plan reading "hire women, pay them less". Why is that any more ridiculous than "hire H1-Bs, pay them less"? If the level of extremity for some reason bothers you (as opposed to just being condescending), why are consulting firms male-dominated? By far the largest cost in that business is people, but consultants at the Big 3 have 70/30 male/female gender splits. Reverse that to 30/70, pay them 10% less, and you've reduced your total labor costs by 4.2%. Seems like an obvious move, doesn't it?My eyes don't tell me that sexism is causing women to be paid less. My brain tells me that women often take a career gap mid-career, are (on average) less aggressive in social situations (unfavorable in most occupations), and culturally are less pressured to be career-driven. Women are, on average, better at multitasking but worse at focusing exclusively on a single task (i.e. work). These are real cultural and biological factors that would presumably affect women's pay in the aggregate. Why is it necessarily "sexism" instead of these factors that explain the pay gap? "I see it with my eyes" is not good enough evidence. TBH that third paragraph on "less aggressive," "worse at focusing," and "biological factors" is enough to be called a sexist in Southern California circles. The female attorneys I work for agree that it is pretty sexist. Let them. If they're offended because they don't understand how an individual's traits and abilities are different from the average of individuals' traits and abilities, that's their own problem. Not society's. I never said that your coworkers were less aggressive or worse at multitasking because they're female. No, the issue you raised was that women should be paid less for the same amount of work. And if H1-B visa was the same thing, then it should be used in place of women. Those visas are for foreign workers coming here on a temporary basis. Not women in the workforce trying to support themselves and a family. You're cherry picking the narrative to suit your needs. I never said they should be paid less for the same work. What I said is that there are cultural and biological factors that plausibly may cause women to be slightly less productive workers, in the aggregate. For that reason, they may be valued less on average by businesses. That says nothing about what an individual woman's worth in the market is relative to the average man. They can be worth far more or far less. The variance of a worker's productivity is nearly entirely within gender, not between gender. To assert that the between gender variance is zero conflicts with the fact that there's measurable differences between genders in everything else. It's simply false on its face. I don't support any kind of discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation because it doesn't make any sense. People should be paid what they're worth. If sexism is indeed the reason are paid less, then that's nonsense and needs to be fixed. But that needs to be clearly established before we start passing laws, unless they're being passed merely for political purposes. Go back and read the first paragraph you wrote. You literally said to substitute the men for women, pay them less, and reduce cost of paying personnel. Or are you saying pay the men 10% less? Because that isn't what you typed. Either way, you're still advocating for paying women less than men for the same work being done. What he was saying is that if the wage gap is as big as advertised, it would make no sense to have a man hired for a job when you could have a woman in that position. With equal competency, you'd get the same product for cheaper. Like mentioned a few pages ago with sometimes what is best from a capitalistic stance isn't always ethical. I understand that. What I'm saying is that it's sexist to do that and then claim "capitalism made me do it." You pay the same for the work being done, regardless of sex. If a woman made more than simply because she was a woman, I'd argue the same thing.
Yes it would be, but that comes with the assumption that such a wide wage gap as usually advertised actually exists. That's not to say that one doesn't exist, or that there aren't situations where they are discriminated against despite the Equal Pay Act,
I'm going to be couching, a lot, in this conversation.
|
|
|
Canada11328 Posts
On July 20 2017 11:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 10:55 Gahlo wrote:On July 20 2017 10:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 20 2017 09:33 mozoku wrote:On July 20 2017 09:18 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 20 2017 09:11 mozoku wrote:On July 20 2017 08:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 20 2017 08:52 mozoku wrote:On July 20 2017 08:30 KwarK wrote:
Not sure if sarcastic or genuinely asking why nobody has started a company with a business plan reading "hire women, pay them less". Why is that any more ridiculous than "hire H1-Bs, pay them less"? If the level of extremity for some reason bothers you (as opposed to just being condescending), why are consulting firms male-dominated? By far the largest cost in that business is people, but consultants at the Big 3 have 70/30 male/female gender splits. Reverse that to 30/70, pay them 10% less, and you've reduced your total labor costs by 4.2%. Seems like an obvious move, doesn't it? My eyes don't tell me that sexism is causing women to be paid less. My brain tells me that women often take a career gap mid-career, are (on average) less aggressive in social situations (unfavorable in most occupations), and culturally are less pressured to be career-driven. Women are, on average, better at multitasking but worse at focusing exclusively on a single task (i.e. work). These are real cultural and biological factors that would presumably affect women's pay in the aggregate. Why is it necessarily "sexism" instead of these factors that explain the pay gap? "I see it with my eyes" is not good enough evidence. Because it's male dominated and they have to deal with male egos. Would you take a negotiation on a multi-million/billion dollar cause seriously if a woman represented the other firm? Probably not. But a male counterpart would probably get that deal done and have the respect of the other party. It's as simple as that. Women aren't less effective at those things, they are viewed that way. You're a prime example of why it's so hard for them to get their fair due in the corporate world. Uhhh, you're aware that there are women CEOs, and still 30% of the consulting business is women, right? Clearly, women can compete with and outperform men. There are female partners at consulting firms, and female directors as well. The issue is I raised is whether they do so on average. If cultural and biological factors don't affect genders differently, why are so many college majors so imbalanced along gender lines (when each person chooses what to study)? On July 20 2017 09:04 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2017 08:56 Danglars wrote:On July 20 2017 08:52 mozoku wrote:On July 20 2017 08:30 KwarK wrote:
Not sure if sarcastic or genuinely asking why nobody has started a company with a business plan reading "hire women, pay them less". Why is that any more ridiculous than "hire H1-Bs, pay them less"? If the level of extremity for some reason bothers you (as opposed to just being condescending), why are consulting firms male-dominated? By far the largest cost in that business is people, but consultants at the Big 3 have 70/30 male/female gender splits. Reverse that to 30/70, pay them 10% less, and you've reduced your total labor costs by 4.2%. Seems like an obvious move, doesn't it?My eyes don't tell me that sexism is causing women to be paid less. My brain tells me that women often take a career gap mid-career, are (on average) less aggressive in social situations (unfavorable in most occupations), and culturally are less pressured to be career-driven. Women are, on average, better at multitasking but worse at focusing exclusively on a single task (i.e. work). These are real cultural and biological factors that would presumably affect women's pay in the aggregate. Why is it necessarily "sexism" instead of these factors that explain the pay gap? "I see it with my eyes" is not good enough evidence. TBH that third paragraph on "less aggressive," "worse at focusing," and "biological factors" is enough to be called a sexist in Southern California circles. The female attorneys I work for agree that it is pretty sexist. Let them. If they're offended because they don't understand how an individual's traits and abilities are different from the average of individuals' traits and abilities, that's their own problem. Not society's. I never said that your coworkers were less aggressive or worse at multitasking because they're female. No, the issue you raised was that women should be paid less for the same amount of work. And if H1-B visa was the same thing, then it should be used in place of women. Those visas are for foreign workers coming here on a temporary basis. Not women in the workforce trying to support themselves and a family. You're cherry picking the narrative to suit your needs. I never said they should be paid less for the same work. What I said is that there are cultural and biological factors that plausibly may cause women to be slightly less productive workers, in the aggregate. For that reason, they may be valued less on average by businesses. That says nothing about what an individual woman's worth in the market is relative to the average man. They can be worth far more or far less. The variance of a worker's productivity is nearly entirely within gender, not between gender. To assert that the between gender variance is zero conflicts with the fact that there's measurable differences between genders in everything else. It's simply false on its face. I don't support any kind of discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation because it doesn't make any sense. People should be paid what they're worth. If sexism is indeed the reason are paid less, then that's nonsense and needs to be fixed. But that needs to be clearly established before we start passing laws, unless they're being passed merely for political purposes. Go back and read the first paragraph you wrote. You literally said to substitute the men for women, pay them less, and reduce cost of paying personnel. Or are you saying pay the men 10% less? Because that isn't what you typed. Either way, you're still advocating for paying women less than men for the same work being done. What he was saying is that if the wage gap is as big as advertised, it would make no sense to have a man hired for a job when you could have a woman in that position. With equal competency, you'd get the same product for cheaper. Like mentioned a few pages ago with sometimes what is best from a capitalistic stance isn't always ethical. I understand that. What I'm saying is that it's sexist to do that and then claim "capitalism made me do it." You pay the same for the work being done, regardless of sex. If a woman made more than simply because she was a woman, I'd argue the same thing.
I'm confused mozoku is arguing that the gender pay gap doesn't exist in any meaningful sense- that if it were true that you could pay a woman .7 for the exact same work that you could pay a man $1.00, then we would see a mass lay off of men and full employment for women. That doesn't exist, ergo it's not true that you can pay a woman .7 to the $1.00 for equal work.
The big thing with that .7 number is did they compare like jobs, or did they add up all jobs held by men and all jobs held by women and divide each respectively? Because that doesn't count for voluntary choice- such as women are more likely to become GP doctors rather than specialize (which they are choosing different, less high paying jobs, but if they had chosen to become surgeons and worked the same number of hours, they would be paid the same) or are more likely to request part time work voluntarily. Behind those number, you really have to dig down to find the motivations of why people are working what they are working.
Even in politics- major parties are actively searching for women candidates to balance out their numbers, but if you look at total candidates, it's overwhelmingly male. Why? Because there's a whole bunch of men deciding to run as third party candidates and perhaps women are less likely to want to run as a longshot nobody of candidate (maybe not disagreeable enough to feel the need to break ranks with the major parties, I don't know.) But there's a lot of factors beyond just looking to enforce 50:50 ratios across the board.
|
Canada13388 Posts
Assuming capitalism is the motivating factor behind gender inequality in wages as an average haha.
Gender inequality in wages comes down to three main factors:
1) Women, on average, tend to work in fields which are paid less
2) Women, on average, take more time off for family and maternity than men
3) Women, on average, don't push for raises or negotiate their salaries as often as men
Now, the flipside of these stats, is the following question:
What makes the above three statements true? Society's expectations and socialization of women into the workforce including what jobs they are expected and pushed towards in their youth.
Of course everyone gets paid the same for the literal same work when recruited as a baseline. Its the way that doesnt work in the real world that is the issue for gender equality.
|
On July 20 2017 11:13 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 11:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 20 2017 10:55 Gahlo wrote:On July 20 2017 10:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 20 2017 09:33 mozoku wrote:On July 20 2017 09:18 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 20 2017 09:11 mozoku wrote:On July 20 2017 08:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 20 2017 08:52 mozoku wrote:On July 20 2017 08:30 KwarK wrote:
Not sure if sarcastic or genuinely asking why nobody has started a company with a business plan reading "hire women, pay them less". Why is that any more ridiculous than "hire H1-Bs, pay them less"? If the level of extremity for some reason bothers you (as opposed to just being condescending), why are consulting firms male-dominated? By far the largest cost in that business is people, but consultants at the Big 3 have 70/30 male/female gender splits. Reverse that to 30/70, pay them 10% less, and you've reduced your total labor costs by 4.2%. Seems like an obvious move, doesn't it? My eyes don't tell me that sexism is causing women to be paid less. My brain tells me that women often take a career gap mid-career, are (on average) less aggressive in social situations (unfavorable in most occupations), and culturally are less pressured to be career-driven. Women are, on average, better at multitasking but worse at focusing exclusively on a single task (i.e. work). These are real cultural and biological factors that would presumably affect women's pay in the aggregate. Why is it necessarily "sexism" instead of these factors that explain the pay gap? "I see it with my eyes" is not good enough evidence. Because it's male dominated and they have to deal with male egos. Would you take a negotiation on a multi-million/billion dollar cause seriously if a woman represented the other firm? Probably not. But a male counterpart would probably get that deal done and have the respect of the other party. It's as simple as that. Women aren't less effective at those things, they are viewed that way. You're a prime example of why it's so hard for them to get their fair due in the corporate world. Uhhh, you're aware that there are women CEOs, and still 30% of the consulting business is women, right? Clearly, women can compete with and outperform men. There are female partners at consulting firms, and female directors as well. The issue is I raised is whether they do so on average. If cultural and biological factors don't affect genders differently, why are so many college majors so imbalanced along gender lines (when each person chooses what to study)? On July 20 2017 09:04 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2017 08:56 Danglars wrote:On July 20 2017 08:52 mozoku wrote:
[quote]
Why is that any more ridiculous than "hire H1-Bs, pay them less"?
If the level of extremity for some reason bothers you (as opposed to just being condescending), why are consulting firms male-dominated? By far the largest cost in that business is people, but consultants at the Big 3 have 70/30 male/female gender splits. Reverse that to 30/70, pay them 10% less, and you've reduced your total labor costs by 4.2%. Seems like an obvious move, doesn't it?
My eyes don't tell me that sexism is causing women to be paid less. My brain tells me that women often take a career gap mid-career, are (on average) less aggressive in social situations (unfavorable in most occupations), and culturally are less pressured to be career-driven. Women are, on average, better at multitasking but worse at focusing exclusively on a single task (i.e. work). These are real cultural and biological factors that would presumably affect women's pay in the aggregate.
Why is it necessarily "sexism" instead of these factors that explain the pay gap? "I see it with my eyes" is not good enough evidence. TBH that third paragraph on "less aggressive," "worse at focusing," and "biological factors" is enough to be called a sexist in Southern California circles. The female attorneys I work for agree that it is pretty sexist. Let them. If they're offended because they don't understand how an individual's traits and abilities are different from the average of individuals' traits and abilities, that's their own problem. Not society's. I never said that your coworkers were less aggressive or worse at multitasking because they're female. No, the issue you raised was that women should be paid less for the same amount of work. And if H1-B visa was the same thing, then it should be used in place of women. Those visas are for foreign workers coming here on a temporary basis. Not women in the workforce trying to support themselves and a family. You're cherry picking the narrative to suit your needs. I never said they should be paid less for the same work. What I said is that there are cultural and biological factors that plausibly may cause women to be slightly less productive workers, in the aggregate. For that reason, they may be valued less on average by businesses. That says nothing about what an individual woman's worth in the market is relative to the average man. They can be worth far more or far less. The variance of a worker's productivity is nearly entirely within gender, not between gender. To assert that the between gender variance is zero conflicts with the fact that there's measurable differences between genders in everything else. It's simply false on its face. I don't support any kind of discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation because it doesn't make any sense. People should be paid what they're worth. If sexism is indeed the reason are paid less, then that's nonsense and needs to be fixed. But that needs to be clearly established before we start passing laws, unless they're being passed merely for political purposes. Go back and read the first paragraph you wrote. You literally said to substitute the men for women, pay them less, and reduce cost of paying personnel. Or are you saying pay the men 10% less? Because that isn't what you typed. Either way, you're still advocating for paying women less than men for the same work being done. What he was saying is that if the wage gap is as big as advertised, it would make no sense to have a man hired for a job when you could have a woman in that position. With equal competency, you'd get the same product for cheaper. Like mentioned a few pages ago with sometimes what is best from a capitalistic stance isn't always ethical. I understand that. What I'm saying is that it's sexist to do that and then claim "capitalism made me do it." You pay the same for the work being done, regardless of sex. If a woman made more than simply because she was a woman, I'd argue the same thing. I'm confused mozoku is arguing that the gender pay gap doesn't exist in any meaningful sense- that if it were true that you could pay a woman .7 for the exact same work that you could pay a man $1.00, then we would see a mass lay off of men and full employment for women. That doesn't exist, ergo it's not true that you can pay a woman .7 to the $1.00 for equal work. The big thing with that .7 number is did they compare like jobs, or did they add up all jobs held by men and all jobs held by women and divide each respectively? Because that doesn't count for voluntary choice- such as women are more likely to become GP doctors rather than specialize (which they are choosing different, less high paying jobs) or are more likely to request part time work voluntarily. Behind those number, you really have to dig down to find the motivations of why people are working what they are working. Even in politics- major parties are actively searching for women candidates to balance out their numbers, but if you look at total candidates, it's overwhelmingly male. Why? Because there's a whole bunch of men deciding to run as third party candidates and perhaps women are less likely to want to run as a longshot nobody of candidate (maybe not disagreeable enough to feel the need to break ranks with the major parties, I don't know.) But there's a lot of factors beyond just looking to enforce 50:50 ratios across the board.
I've seen it listed at 77-79% depending on sources. From what I've heard, the only criteria was "Is this person working full time? If so, how much did they earn and what was their sex?" and then averaged from there.
|
Canada11328 Posts
"Society's expectations and socialization of women into the workforce including what jobs they are expected and pushed towards in their youth."
What if that isn't true. What if those women have agency and actually want to work in jobs that tend to be more people oriented rather than thing oriented (for instance). For number 2, there is also a biological factor- that is women are literally giving birth to babies, which cannot be done by men. That means there will naturally be more maternity leave around that time period regardless of societal expectations and socialization... unless you propose they give birth at the workplace and keep going.
But what if it is the case that young professional women are hotshots in their careers and then suddenly, when they hit their early thirties, they decide what is really valuable to them is to start a family and drop out of the labourforce for a time, does that really count as gender pay gap or societal expectation and socialization? What about that individual woman's wants, desires, agency and choice? I think it really matter why people are doing what they are doing and it goes beyond socialization. People can also want what they want.
On July 20 2017 11:15 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 11:13 Falling wrote:On July 20 2017 11:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 20 2017 10:55 Gahlo wrote:On July 20 2017 10:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 20 2017 09:33 mozoku wrote:On July 20 2017 09:18 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 20 2017 09:11 mozoku wrote:On July 20 2017 08:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 20 2017 08:52 mozoku wrote:
[quote]
Why is that any more ridiculous than "hire H1-Bs, pay them less"?
If the level of extremity for some reason bothers you (as opposed to just being condescending), why are consulting firms male-dominated? By far the largest cost in that business is people, but consultants at the Big 3 have 70/30 male/female gender splits. Reverse that to 30/70, pay them 10% less, and you've reduced your total labor costs by 4.2%. Seems like an obvious move, doesn't it?
My eyes don't tell me that sexism is causing women to be paid less. My brain tells me that women often take a career gap mid-career, are (on average) less aggressive in social situations (unfavorable in most occupations), and culturally are less pressured to be career-driven. Women are, on average, better at multitasking but worse at focusing exclusively on a single task (i.e. work). These are real cultural and biological factors that would presumably affect women's pay in the aggregate.
Why is it necessarily "sexism" instead of these factors that explain the pay gap? "I see it with my eyes" is not good enough evidence. Because it's male dominated and they have to deal with male egos. Would you take a negotiation on a multi-million/billion dollar cause seriously if a woman represented the other firm? Probably not. But a male counterpart would probably get that deal done and have the respect of the other party. It's as simple as that. Women aren't less effective at those things, they are viewed that way. You're a prime example of why it's so hard for them to get their fair due in the corporate world. Uhhh, you're aware that there are women CEOs, and still 30% of the consulting business is women, right? Clearly, women can compete with and outperform men. There are female partners at consulting firms, and female directors as well. The issue is I raised is whether they do so on average. If cultural and biological factors don't affect genders differently, why are so many college majors so imbalanced along gender lines (when each person chooses what to study)? On July 20 2017 09:04 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2017 08:56 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
TBH that third paragraph on "less aggressive," "worse at focusing," and "biological factors" is enough to be called a sexist in Southern California circles. The female attorneys I work for agree that it is pretty sexist. Let them. If they're offended because they don't understand how an individual's traits and abilities are different from the average of individuals' traits and abilities, that's their own problem. Not society's. I never said that your coworkers were less aggressive or worse at multitasking because they're female. No, the issue you raised was that women should be paid less for the same amount of work. And if H1-B visa was the same thing, then it should be used in place of women. Those visas are for foreign workers coming here on a temporary basis. Not women in the workforce trying to support themselves and a family. You're cherry picking the narrative to suit your needs. I never said they should be paid less for the same work. What I said is that there are cultural and biological factors that plausibly may cause women to be slightly less productive workers, in the aggregate. For that reason, they may be valued less on average by businesses. That says nothing about what an individual woman's worth in the market is relative to the average man. They can be worth far more or far less. The variance of a worker's productivity is nearly entirely within gender, not between gender. To assert that the between gender variance is zero conflicts with the fact that there's measurable differences between genders in everything else. It's simply false on its face. I don't support any kind of discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation because it doesn't make any sense. People should be paid what they're worth. If sexism is indeed the reason are paid less, then that's nonsense and needs to be fixed. But that needs to be clearly established before we start passing laws, unless they're being passed merely for political purposes. Go back and read the first paragraph you wrote. You literally said to substitute the men for women, pay them less, and reduce cost of paying personnel. Or are you saying pay the men 10% less? Because that isn't what you typed. Either way, you're still advocating for paying women less than men for the same work being done. What he was saying is that if the wage gap is as big as advertised, it would make no sense to have a man hired for a job when you could have a woman in that position. With equal competency, you'd get the same product for cheaper. Like mentioned a few pages ago with sometimes what is best from a capitalistic stance isn't always ethical. I understand that. What I'm saying is that it's sexist to do that and then claim "capitalism made me do it." You pay the same for the work being done, regardless of sex. If a woman made more than simply because she was a woman, I'd argue the same thing. I'm confused mozoku is arguing that the gender pay gap doesn't exist in any meaningful sense- that if it were true that you could pay a woman .7 for the exact same work that you could pay a man $1.00, then we would see a mass lay off of men and full employment for women. That doesn't exist, ergo it's not true that you can pay a woman .7 to the $1.00 for equal work. The big thing with that .7 number is did they compare like jobs, or did they add up all jobs held by men and all jobs held by women and divide each respectively? Because that doesn't count for voluntary choice- such as women are more likely to become GP doctors rather than specialize (which they are choosing different, less high paying jobs) or are more likely to request part time work voluntarily. Behind those number, you really have to dig down to find the motivations of why people are working what they are working. Even in politics- major parties are actively searching for women candidates to balance out their numbers, but if you look at total candidates, it's overwhelmingly male. Why? Because there's a whole bunch of men deciding to run as third party candidates and perhaps women are less likely to want to run as a longshot nobody of candidate (maybe not disagreeable enough to feel the need to break ranks with the major parties, I don't know.) But there's a lot of factors beyond just looking to enforce 50:50 ratios across the board. I've seen it listed at 77-79% depending on sources. From what I've heard, the only criteria was "Is this person working full time? If so, how much did they earn and what was their sex?" and then averaged from there.
If that is true, that's a really bad comparison that makes it difficult to make any meaningful analysis because it doesn't ever get to why people are in the jobs that they are in. Did they shoot for brain surgeon, but the patriarchy knocked them down and so they chose to become a GP, or did, in the course of their training and work, they decide they have no interest in becoming a brain surgeon. Or maybe they never had a desire to become a brain surgeon. That matters. A lot.
|
On Wednesday, Young America’s Foundation and the Berkeley College Republicans were told by the University of California, Berkeley administration that Berkeley would not facilitate an event by Daily Wire editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro on September 14 on campus. Instead, administrators have informed YAF and BCR that they are “unable to identify an available campus venue.” They have not provided a list of other events taking place on campus on that time and date that would prevent Shapiro from speaking.
As YAF reports:
In an email to BCR members, Dean of Students Joseph Greenwell and Student Organization Coordinator Millicent Morris Chaney denied the students’ request for a venue for September 14, 2017, despite what the Morris Chaney calls “extensive efforts.”
Berkeley had earlier explained, “Ben Shapiro is welcome on our campus, and we are committed to supporting his, and your, rights to free speech.”
Obviously, that isn’t true. The administrator states that Berkeley can only host Shapiro “when events are held at a time and location that allow for the provision of any required security measures.”
Berkeley has not yet provided any alternative times, dates, or locations.
Berkeley’s attempt to prevent Shapiro’s speech follows hard on the university’s decision to cancel Ann Coulter’s speaking engagement at the school earlier this year thanks to supposed security concerns, and Berkeley’s cancellation of a speech by Milo Yiannopoulos in 2016 after Antifa rioters broke into violence just prior to his scheduled event.
Shapiro told YAF, “Using ridiculous pretexts to keep conservatives from speaking is unsurprising but disappointing. We’ll find a way to get this event done, and UC Berkeley has a moral and legal obligation to ensure we do so.”
Shapiro spoke at UC Berkeley in April 2016, with no security problems of any kind.
Shapiro told The Daily Wire, “We’re coming to Berkeley, regardless of attempts to stop us. It’s just a question of when and where. Stay tuned.”
www.dailywire.com
UC Berkeley vs conservative speakers part 3 (Though Shapiro is a lot less loathsome than the other two)
|
If we're talking strictly about the time they are in the workforce, then you cannot justify paying a comparable woman less than a comparable man, other than sexist views that women shouldn't be paid the equal of a man. You hear it in the gossip columns of rags around the country. Actresses being paid less for leading roles in movies than male counterparts. Male counterparts taking pay cuts so that women get the pay they deserve. Emmy Rossum is an example of fighting for equal pay as a leading actor. There was another example of men taking pay cuts so that the woman got her due check.
You can and should be able to pay women the same regardless the field if they are comparable to men in every way. Take biological factors out of it. Women go through more then men so that's a "strike" against them, as P6 stated on the previous page.
|
On July 20 2017 11:21 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +"Society's expectations and socialization of women into the workforce including what jobs they are expected and pushed towards in their youth." What if that isn't true. What if those women have agency and actually want to work in jobs that tend to be more people oriented rather than thing oriented (for instance). For number 2, there is also a biological factor- that is women are literally giving birth to babies, which cannot be done by men. That means there will naturally be more maternity leave around that time period regardless of societal expectations and socialization... unless you propose they give birth at the workplace and keep going. But what if it is the case that young professional women are hotshots in their careers and then suddenly, when they hit their early thirties, they decide what is really valuable to them is to start a family and drop out of the labourforce for a time, does that really count as gender pay gap or societal expectation and socialization? What about that individual woman's wants, desires, agency and choice? I think it really matter why people are doing what they are doing and it goes beyond socialization. People can also want what they want.
I like this post.
|
On July 20 2017 11:21 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +"Society's expectations and socialization of women into the workforce including what jobs they are expected and pushed towards in their youth." What if that isn't true. What if those women have agency and actually want to work in jobs that tend to be more people oriented rather than thing oriented (for instance). For number 2, there is also a biological factor- that is women are literally giving birth to babies, which cannot be done by men. That means there will naturally be more maternity leave around that time period regardless of societal expectations and socialization... unless you propose they give birth at the workplace and keep going. But what if it is the case that young professional women are hotshots in their careers and then suddenly, when they hit their early thirties, they decide what is really valuable to them is to start a family and drop out of the labourforce for a time, does that really count as gender pay gap or societal expectation and socialization? What about that individual woman's wants, desires, agency and choice? I think it really matter why people are doing what they are doing and it goes beyond socialization. People can also want what they want.
It sure does count as socialization, there's no such thing as being outside of your social expectations. In very wealthy countries it's usually just the result of being able to not have to work full time. In much of Asia, Russia and even countries like Iran nowadays female participation in the labour market is really high.
|
Canada11328 Posts
Why are you using high paid actors as an example? The movie industry is pretty mercurial as far as who gets paid what based on star power and behind the scenes negotiations. It would be far more helpful to look at far more standard jobs.
On July 20 2017 11:30 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 11:21 Falling wrote:"Society's expectations and socialization of women into the workforce including what jobs they are expected and pushed towards in their youth." What if that isn't true. What if those women have agency and actually want to work in jobs that tend to be more people oriented rather than thing oriented (for instance). For number 2, there is also a biological factor- that is women are literally giving birth to babies, which cannot be done by men. That means there will naturally be more maternity leave around that time period regardless of societal expectations and socialization... unless you propose they give birth at the workplace and keep going. But what if it is the case that young professional women are hotshots in their careers and then suddenly, when they hit their early thirties, they decide what is really valuable to them is to start a family and drop out of the labourforce for a time, does that really count as gender pay gap or societal expectation and socialization? What about that individual woman's wants, desires, agency and choice? I think it really matter why people are doing what they are doing and it goes beyond socialization. People can also want what they want. It sure does count as socialization, there's no such thing as being outside of your social expectations. In very wealthy countries it's usually just the result of being able to not have to work full time. In much of Asia, Russia and even countries like Iran nowadays female participation in the labour market is really high.
And female participation in the workforce in North America is also very high. Canada 15-24 64%, which is higher than males at 63%. Then 25-44 82% which is lower than men at 91%, but not by much. 45+ 47% compared to 58% males.
Do you believe people have agency or choice? Do you believe people have desires and that desires can change and be prioritized to the point where something family can be a higher prioritization than paid work? Because they way you are framing this, doesn't seem to leave much room for agency outside of 'there's no such thing as being outside of your social expectations'. Programmed to desire?
|
Quite a few analyses do look within specific professions and still find wage gaps. The 70 cent figure usually doesn't pop up once that's accounted for, but it's not rare to see 0.8-0.9 numbers, and as far as I know I've never seen a study where the gap disappeared.
Nursing is one of the big studied areas, I think. Here's a summary article. You'd be hard pressed to find any fields where women make more than men (and if there was truly no wage gap, you would find equally as many studies showing women make more than men as men making more than women).
|
I dislike the idea that universities are required to provide unlimited security and failing to do so is an attack on free speech. Plenty of things get canceled due to security concerns and speeches are one of them. This goal post keeps shifting around.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 20 2017 11:09 Nevuk wrote:
I think that the current opinion on the pay gap is that a very large portion of it is explained by women taking a few years off to raise a child, while men are far less likely to do it. Any gap in work is going to depress wages.
Having a baby is in and of itself a career hazard.
|
On July 20 2017 11:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 11:21 Falling wrote:"Society's expectations and socialization of women into the workforce including what jobs they are expected and pushed towards in their youth." What if that isn't true. What if those women have agency and actually want to work in jobs that tend to be more people oriented rather than thing oriented (for instance). For number 2, there is also a biological factor- that is women are literally giving birth to babies, which cannot be done by men. That means there will naturally be more maternity leave around that time period regardless of societal expectations and socialization... unless you propose they give birth at the workplace and keep going. But what if it is the case that young professional women are hotshots in their careers and then suddenly, when they hit their early thirties, they decide what is really valuable to them is to start a family and drop out of the labourforce for a time, does that really count as gender pay gap or societal expectation and socialization? What about that individual woman's wants, desires, agency and choice? I think it really matter why people are doing what they are doing and it goes beyond socialization. People can also want what they want. I like this post.
The follow up question is why don't men leave the work forces as often as women? It could be pure biology, but my bet is on culture and centuries of male dominated society. I would like to see a world where men and women leave the works force to care for children close in close to equal measure.
On July 20 2017 11:33 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 11:09 Nevuk wrote:
I think that the current opinion on the pay gap is that a very large portion of it is explained by women taking a few years off to raise a child, while men are far less likely to do it. Any gap in work is going to depress wages. Having a baby is in and of itself a career hazard.
That is failing of modern culture. Nations need children to replace the work force and keep the economy from shrinking. The capitalistic norm that children a career hazard runs counter to what nations need to sustain themselves.
|
On July 20 2017 11:30 Falling wrote:Why are you using high paid actors as an example? The movie industry is pretty mercurial as far as who gets paid what based on star power and behind the scenes negotiations. It would be far more helpful to look at far more standard jobs. Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 11:30 Nyxisto wrote:On July 20 2017 11:21 Falling wrote:"Society's expectations and socialization of women into the workforce including what jobs they are expected and pushed towards in their youth." What if that isn't true. What if those women have agency and actually want to work in jobs that tend to be more people oriented rather than thing oriented (for instance). For number 2, there is also a biological factor- that is women are literally giving birth to babies, which cannot be done by men. That means there will naturally be more maternity leave around that time period regardless of societal expectations and socialization... unless you propose they give birth at the workplace and keep going. But what if it is the case that young professional women are hotshots in their careers and then suddenly, when they hit their early thirties, they decide what is really valuable to them is to start a family and drop out of the labourforce for a time, does that really count as gender pay gap or societal expectation and socialization? What about that individual woman's wants, desires, agency and choice? I think it really matter why people are doing what they are doing and it goes beyond socialization. People can also want what they want. It sure does count as socialization, there's no such thing as being outside of your social expectations. In very wealthy countries it's usually just the result of being able to not have to work full time. In much of Asia, Russia and even countries like Iran nowadays female participation in the labour market is really high. And female participation in the workforce in North America is also very high. Canada 15-24 64%, which is higher than males at 63%. Then 25-44 82% which is lower than men at 91%, but not by much. 45+ 47% compared to 58% males. Do you believe people have agency or choice? Do you believe people have desires and that desires can change and be prioritized to the point where something family can be a higher prioritization than paid work? Because they way you are framing this, doesn't seem to leave much room for agency outside of 'there's no such thing as being outside of your social expectations'. Programmed to desire?
In the need to respond quickly, I picked the first example that came to mind. I'll dig a bit for a better example. One moment.
Architecture (my profession): www.acsa-arch.org
Journalists: www.washingtonpost.com
I could do a lot of different professions, but for sake of brevity, I'll go with these two.
|
On July 20 2017 11:26 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
If we're talking strictly about the time they are in the workforce, then you cannot justify paying a comparable woman less than a comparable man, other than sexist views that women shouldn't be paid the equal of a man. You hear it in the gossip columns of rags around the country. Actresses being paid less for leading roles in movies than male counterparts. Male counterparts taking pay cuts so that women get the pay they deserve. Emmy Rossum is an example of fighting for equal pay as a leading actor. There was another example of men taking pay cuts so that the woman got her due check.
You can and should be able to pay women the same regardless the field if they are comparable to men in every way. Take biological factors out of it. Women go through more then men so that's a "strike" against them, as P6 stated on the previous page.
Acting isn't an equivalent thing though. You'd pay Tom Cruise more money to be in a movie than you would Zach Braff or more to Johansson than Zoey Deschannel. A performance is worth what you get from it. If some actresses are legitimately getting fucked over, by all means they should come out and demand a fair pay. But at the same time the demands must be reasonable. If I'm remembering correctly, Rossum was also demanding make up pay for when she was getting payed less as a less accredited actor.
|
On July 20 2017 11:06 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 11:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 20 2017 10:55 Gahlo wrote:On July 20 2017 10:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 20 2017 09:33 mozoku wrote:On July 20 2017 09:18 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 20 2017 09:11 mozoku wrote:On July 20 2017 08:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 20 2017 08:52 mozoku wrote:On July 20 2017 08:30 KwarK wrote:
Not sure if sarcastic or genuinely asking why nobody has started a company with a business plan reading "hire women, pay them less". Why is that any more ridiculous than "hire H1-Bs, pay them less"? If the level of extremity for some reason bothers you (as opposed to just being condescending), why are consulting firms male-dominated? By far the largest cost in that business is people, but consultants at the Big 3 have 70/30 male/female gender splits. Reverse that to 30/70, pay them 10% less, and you've reduced your total labor costs by 4.2%. Seems like an obvious move, doesn't it? My eyes don't tell me that sexism is causing women to be paid less. My brain tells me that women often take a career gap mid-career, are (on average) less aggressive in social situations (unfavorable in most occupations), and culturally are less pressured to be career-driven. Women are, on average, better at multitasking but worse at focusing exclusively on a single task (i.e. work). These are real cultural and biological factors that would presumably affect women's pay in the aggregate. Why is it necessarily "sexism" instead of these factors that explain the pay gap? "I see it with my eyes" is not good enough evidence. Because it's male dominated and they have to deal with male egos. Would you take a negotiation on a multi-million/billion dollar cause seriously if a woman represented the other firm? Probably not. But a male counterpart would probably get that deal done and have the respect of the other party. It's as simple as that. Women aren't less effective at those things, they are viewed that way. You're a prime example of why it's so hard for them to get their fair due in the corporate world. Uhhh, you're aware that there are women CEOs, and still 30% of the consulting business is women, right? Clearly, women can compete with and outperform men. There are female partners at consulting firms, and female directors as well. The issue is I raised is whether they do so on average. If cultural and biological factors don't affect genders differently, why are so many college majors so imbalanced along gender lines (when each person chooses what to study)? On July 20 2017 09:04 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2017 08:56 Danglars wrote:On July 20 2017 08:52 mozoku wrote:
[quote]
Why is that any more ridiculous than "hire H1-Bs, pay them less"?
If the level of extremity for some reason bothers you (as opposed to just being condescending), why are consulting firms male-dominated? By far the largest cost in that business is people, but consultants at the Big 3 have 70/30 male/female gender splits. Reverse that to 30/70, pay them 10% less, and you've reduced your total labor costs by 4.2%. Seems like an obvious move, doesn't it?
My eyes don't tell me that sexism is causing women to be paid less. My brain tells me that women often take a career gap mid-career, are (on average) less aggressive in social situations (unfavorable in most occupations), and culturally are less pressured to be career-driven. Women are, on average, better at multitasking but worse at focusing exclusively on a single task (i.e. work). These are real cultural and biological factors that would presumably affect women's pay in the aggregate.
Why is it necessarily "sexism" instead of these factors that explain the pay gap? "I see it with my eyes" is not good enough evidence. TBH that third paragraph on "less aggressive," "worse at focusing," and "biological factors" is enough to be called a sexist in Southern California circles. The female attorneys I work for agree that it is pretty sexist. Let them. If they're offended because they don't understand how an individual's traits and abilities are different from the average of individuals' traits and abilities, that's their own problem. Not society's. I never said that your coworkers were less aggressive or worse at multitasking because they're female. No, the issue you raised was that women should be paid less for the same amount of work. And if H1-B visa was the same thing, then it should be used in place of women. Those visas are for foreign workers coming here on a temporary basis. Not women in the workforce trying to support themselves and a family. You're cherry picking the narrative to suit your needs. I never said they should be paid less for the same work. What I said is that there are cultural and biological factors that plausibly may cause women to be slightly less productive workers, in the aggregate. For that reason, they may be valued less on average by businesses. That says nothing about what an individual woman's worth in the market is relative to the average man. They can be worth far more or far less. The variance of a worker's productivity is nearly entirely within gender, not between gender. To assert that the between gender variance is zero conflicts with the fact that there's measurable differences between genders in everything else. It's simply false on its face. I don't support any kind of discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation because it doesn't make any sense. People should be paid what they're worth. If sexism is indeed the reason are paid less, then that's nonsense and needs to be fixed. But that needs to be clearly established before we start passing laws, unless they're being passed merely for political purposes. Go back and read the first paragraph you wrote. You literally said to substitute the men for women, pay them less, and reduce cost of paying personnel. Or are you saying pay the men 10% less? Because that isn't what you typed. Either way, you're still advocating for paying women less than men for the same work being done. What he was saying is that if the wage gap is as big as advertised, it would make no sense to have a man hired for a job when you could have a woman in that position. With equal competency, you'd get the same product for cheaper. Like mentioned a few pages ago with sometimes what is best from a capitalistic stance isn't always ethical. I understand that. What I'm saying is that it's sexist to do that and then claim "capitalism made me do it." You pay the same for the work being done, regardless of sex. If a woman made more than simply because she was a woman, I'd argue the same thing. In theory, if firms made more money by hiring "cheap female labor", then the demand for "cheap female labor" would rise until the price of female labor was the same as male labor.
And what if the wage gap is because managers perceive the male labour as the more valuable labour? Two roles with the same work and responsibility, but one gets better raises than the other.
Of course, this is an entirely valid reason for a wage discrepancy if applied without an bias. But if that discrepancy existed across, on average, across the entire work force, I would be rather suspect.
But, I haven't looked at the methodology or analysis for these studies. But it's entirely possible for a wage gap to exist without an explicit "women are cheaper labour than men" mentality.
|
On July 20 2017 11:42 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 11:26 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
If we're talking strictly about the time they are in the workforce, then you cannot justify paying a comparable woman less than a comparable man, other than sexist views that women shouldn't be paid the equal of a man. You hear it in the gossip columns of rags around the country. Actresses being paid less for leading roles in movies than male counterparts. Male counterparts taking pay cuts so that women get the pay they deserve. Emmy Rossum is an example of fighting for equal pay as a leading actor. There was another example of men taking pay cuts so that the woman got her due check.
You can and should be able to pay women the same regardless the field if they are comparable to men in every way. Take biological factors out of it. Women go through more then men so that's a "strike" against them, as P6 stated on the previous page. Acting isn't an equivalent thing though. You'd pay Tom Cruise more money to be in a movie than you would Zach Braff or more to Johansson than Zoey Deschannel. A performance is worth what you get from it. If some actresses are legitimately getting fucked over, by all means they should come out and demand a fair pay. But at the same time the demands must be reasonable. If I'm remembering correctly, Rossum was also demanding make up pay for when she was getting payed less as a less accredited actor.
I edited my post to reflect that. While it would be hard pressed for her to recover those wages, it happens in the "normal" workforce as well, demanding back pay for missed wages. So I don't see it being a big deal for an actor.
In response to your equivalency, if Tom Cruise hammed in his performance while Johansson did her best, why pay her less? Sure contracts are negotiated beforehand, but if they are both billed as lead actors/actresses, pay should be near the same or equal. Would you agree? You can't compare A list to B list actors. It has to A to A in order to draw a better comparison.
|
iirc after adjusting for a whole bevy of factors like experience, etc. there's still a wage gap though it's something like ninety cents on the dollar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
