tragabigzanda wrote:
Oh I have no opinion on this. I agree that $0.79 is the figure most often cited, but I've not looked at research closely enough to take any sort of stance on this.
[Corporations] have an interest in protecting the patriarchy and are prejudiced against women
I realize you're being hypothetical, but this feels disingenuous.
4/5 wrote:It comes down to what's their primary interest. If it is indeed to profit, and that's usually the accepted primary motivation, well they would be spiting themselves by underpaying women.
Agreed.
4/5 wrote:
they'd be absolute fools not to take advantage of this clear inefficiency. They could significantly cut their input costs while not hampering output one bit, giving them a huge advantage in whatever they're doing.
My experience-by-proxy tells me this is false: My wife is less motivated to put in extra hours and go the extra mile when she is financially compensated less than a male counterpart (and has to put up with inane bullshit like being told she's "too emotional" when she expresses, with consummate professionalism, her displeasure at something in the workplace).
4/5 wrote:This would increase the demand for this equally skilled female labor, driving up their wage while at the same time decreasing the demand for male labor, driving down their wage until the two converge.
Theoretically yes, but these sorts of cause/effect economic relationships are rarely so cut-and-dry. There are far more mitigating factors to consider in the wage of an individual, like local cost of living; age; time with the company and projected future; the employee's leverage during negotiations; network (are they an old friend, etc).
4/5 wrote:As long as there remains any gap there exists the opportunity for some ruthless capitalist to profit by employing more women.
Yes.
4/5 wrote:The only way a gap this large could persist then would mean that their love for discrimination outstrips their love of profit, which is of course the thing we've all been taught they love the most in this world. And if that were true there'd be amazing opportunities for some woman or non-women-hating man to start a company and exclusively hire women...again fixing this inefficiency before long.
I'm still not sure what you're driving at though. Are you saying that the pay gap isn't real? Or that it's effectively being mitigated by the free market? Or something else entirely?
You're saying that if there's a gender gap because of discrimination that it WOULDN'T create great opportunities for any prospective person/company who decides to hire women?
My point is that whatever gender gap there is very little of it is caused by discrimination as your initial post in this thread implied. Secondly, my point is that a free market in which the actors with power actually do hold anti-woman biases it would still fix the gap in a relatively short period of time as a result of the profit motive.
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
--- wrote:I don't understand your brain, tragabigzanda.
Can you be more specific?
You seem more interested in extraneous details ("Why is that the 'best' [paper]?", going on and on about the legalities of setting up a corporation), but then "have no opinion" on the specifics of the issue that inspired the thread in the first place. Then you admit to not looking closely enough at the research on the gap itself to take a stance. Then you take a stance, based entirely on (again, entirely extraneous) factors you imagine are at play with a single data point, your wife.
I have no idea what broader points you're trying to make.
It seems to me you understand his brain pretty well...
4/5 wrote:
My point is that whatever gender gap there is very little of it is caused by discrimination as your initial post in this thread implied. Secondly, my point is that a free market in which the actors with power actually do hold anti-woman biases it would still fix the gap in a relatively short period of time as a result of the profit motive.
Even if you take as a given the (terrible) argument that all employers engage in discriminatory hiring/promoting/compensation practices, it doesn't follow that all of those employers will be equally discriminatory. Those amongst this group with less of an inclination to discriminate against women stand to gain at the expense of those with more of an inclination to discriminate.
Theoretically, the only way for the wage gap to exist in a world with the profit motive is for the relative discriminatory intensities to be uniformly distributed across all employers.
4/5 wrote:
My point is that whatever gender gap there is very little of it is caused by discrimination as your initial post in this thread implied. Secondly, my point is that a free market in which the actors with power actually do hold anti-woman biases it would still fix the gap in a relatively short period of time as a result of the profit motive.
Even if you take as a given the (terrible) argument that all employers engage in discriminatory hiring/promoting/compensation practices, it doesn't follow that all of those employers will be equally discriminatory. Those amongst this group with less of an inclination to discriminate against women stand to gain at the expense of those with more of an inclination to discriminate.
Theoretically, the only way for the wage gap to exist in a world with the profit motive is for the relative discriminatory intensities to be uniformly distributed across all employers.
So, why does it exist, ---? Cause of babies? Personality traits? Inclinations to pursue different career paths?
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Last edited by BurtReynolds on Tue March 07, 2023 3:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
No, I was responding to your use of the word "exclusively." It would be extremely difficult for a for-profit company to exclusively hire women, because it would run afoul of labor discrimination laws. There could be some sort of loophole with a B-Corp setup, but I am skeptical.
Seems extraneous... His point was it's a bad idea in a free market, profit-driven organization. It ultimately is the least profitable choice and they would lose out to a less sexist company. The least sexist company wins. Ultimately this leads to fair-hiring practices, unless women are less competent... they aren't.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Last edited by BurtReynolds on Tue March 07, 2023 3:48 am, edited 2 times in total.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Last edited by BurtReynolds on Tue March 07, 2023 3:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
I see a whole lot of talk of whether, and to what extent, employers collectively retain sex discrimination with regard to compensation, so I won't add to that. What I will add is another form of sex discrimination that's more social than economic that's contributing a big chunk to it:
The pay gap is actually quite narrow until it chasms when women start having kids. That's because there's still a large societal norm of women becoming the primary caretakers for their children in lieu of their professional lives. So, in order to combat that, we need more men scaling back some hours of their own to help out with the kids. Or failing that, more men just need to flat out become homemakers if their earning potential is decidedly behind their wife's.
Green Habit wrote:I see a whole lot of talk of whether, and to what extent, employers collectively retain sex discrimination with regard to compensation, so I won't add to that. What I will add is another form of sex discrimination that's more social than economic that's contributing a big chunk to it:
The pay gap is actually quite narrow until it chasms when women start having kids. That's because there's still a large societal norm of women becoming the primary caretakers for their children in lieu of their professional lives. So, in order to combat that, we need more men scaling back some hours of their own to help out with the kids. Or failing that, more men just need to flat out become homemakers if their earning potential is decidedly behind their wife's.
Does this occur because of 'sex discrimination' or because couples come to this decision together, based on what they feel is the best choice? Breastfeeding is something only women can do and they feel a deeper connection to their babies than men, making it more difficult to spend time away in the early years.
No. So the search function does work...
... always love me some Super Coen Bros...
