4 ms·

> So unless you believe women are worth less than men the wage gap is a problem. You really don't understand logic do you? Do you think that everybody should b

> So unless you believe women are worth less than men the wage gap is a problem. You really don't understand logic do you? Do you think that everybody should be paid equally? People who contribute less will get paid less and that's not a problem. Women, who biologically generally have to take time off work for childbirth, do not contribute to the company during that time. In that case the woman is worth less to the company and should get paid less. Not quite sure if you're trolling here, since this is a simple and abundantly clear point.

gizmo 10y ago
> Do you think that everybody should be paid equally? I believe men and women in aggregate should get paid equally. I'm not trolling, I actually believe this. Regarding childbirth: since earnings are determined by politics, biology has nothing to do with it. It's pretty clear by now you believe that women in aggregate contribute less to society (paid + unpaid work) and therefore ought to get less money. That's why you don't have a problem with the wage gap. It's not an uncommon view, but plainly sexist.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > but plainly sexist. I don't see how it's sexist at all, but your insinuations are cheap rhetorical tricks used to advance and indefensible position, unless you mean sexist in a way that's morally neutral. For instance, men on aggregate have more upper body strength than women. Is that sexist? > It's pretty clear by now you believe that women in aggregate contribute less to society (paid + unpaid work) Do not put words into my mouth. I believe that women, due to a combination of factors, such as cultural and biological factors, go into professions that don't get paid as well and don't advance quite as far into those professions. They may contribute to society equally, but society doesn't write paychecks. Companies do. If you're not contributing to the company, they don't pay you.
  - gizmo 10y ago
    > They may contribute to society equally, but society doesn't write paychecks. Society determines how wealth is divided, though. Women getting paid less is not a law of nature (like upper body strength), but a consequence of our (sexist) socioeconomic policy. There are many things we can do to close the gap. See for instance: http://www.epi.org/publication/closing-the-pay-gap-and-beyond/#epi-toc-2 http://www.epi.org/publication/closing-the-pay-gap-and-beyon...
- sokoloff 10y ago
  > I believe men and women in aggregate should get paid equally. I'm not trolling, I actually believe this. Regardless of any other condition? Suppose 10% more men than women were working in any given year. Should the men in aggregate be paid the same as the women? What if 10% more women than men were working? What if women on average worked 2 fewer years in their total career. Should the aggregates still be equal? What if women on average had more education (or less education), or worked riskier (or less risky) jobs? I don't start with a premise that men and women should be paid the same in aggregate, unless you add additional qualifiers. Men and women performing the same work, with the same skills and experience should on average be paid the same. Note "on average" rather than "in aggregate". I have no problem with oil rig workers being paid more than food servers or nurses being paid more than valet parking attendants. I have no problem with career office workers being paid more than stay at home parents. Nothing in this paragraph is gender-specific; it's a function of the job and the value that job has to the employer.
  - gizmo 10y ago
    > Regardless of any other condition? Pretty much. There is no reason why one gender would suddenly become lazier or more productive than another gender, so equal pay looks like the sensible default position to me.
    - sokoloff 10y ago
      OK, so how do you implement it? As an employer, how do I know how to trim the wages of the "overpaid" gender to make things balance out? Do I go by how the individual identifies, or their genetic composition? If someone takes a second job to help make ends meet, how do we notify their first employer to cut their wages appropriately?
      - gizmo 10y ago
        Individual employers can't fix this by themselves. They can -- and should -- minimize their contribution to the wage gap, but ultimately political change is needed as well. There are many studies on how to close the wage gap. For example see: http://www.epi.org/publication/closing-the-pay-gap-and-beyond/#epi-toc-2 http://www.epi.org/publication/closing-the-pay-gap-and-beyon...
dang 10y ago
> You really don't understand logic Personal attacks are not allowed on HN. You've been uncivil in other comments as well. We ban accounts that do this repeatedly, so please stop. While I have you... please don't engage in rehashed gender flamewars either. They're tedious, and this isn't the first time we've had to ask you. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13586154 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13586154 and marked it off-topic.

gizmo 10y ago

> Do you think that everybody should be paid equally? I believe men and women in aggregate should get paid equally. I'm not trolling, I actually believe this. Regarding childbirth: since earnings are determined by politics, biology has nothing to do with it. It's pretty clear by now you believe that women in aggregate contribute less to society (paid + unpaid work) and therefore ought to get less money. That's why you don't have a problem with the wage gap. It's not an uncommon view, but plainly sexist.

jimmywanger 10y ago
> but plainly sexist. I don't see how it's sexist at all, but your insinuations are cheap rhetorical tricks used to advance and indefensible position, unless you mean sexist in a way that's morally neutral. For instance, men on aggregate have more upper body strength than women. Is that sexist? > It's pretty clear by now you believe that women in aggregate contribute less to society (paid + unpaid work) Do not put words into my mouth. I believe that women, due to a combination of factors, such as cultural and biological factors, go into professions that don't get paid as well and don't advance quite as far into those professions. They may contribute to society equally, but society doesn't write paychecks. Companies do. If you're not contributing to the company, they don't pay you.
- gizmo 10y ago
  > They may contribute to society equally, but society doesn't write paychecks. Society determines how wealth is divided, though. Women getting paid less is not a law of nature (like upper body strength), but a consequence of our (sexist) socioeconomic policy. There are many things we can do to close the gap. See for instance: http://www.epi.org/publication/closing-the-pay-gap-and-beyond/#epi-toc-2 http://www.epi.org/publication/closing-the-pay-gap-and-beyon...
sokoloff 10y ago
> I believe men and women in aggregate should get paid equally. I'm not trolling, I actually believe this. Regardless of any other condition? Suppose 10% more men than women were working in any given year. Should the men in aggregate be paid the same as the women? What if 10% more women than men were working? What if women on average worked 2 fewer years in their total career. Should the aggregates still be equal? What if women on average had more education (or less education), or worked riskier (or less risky) jobs? I don't start with a premise that men and women should be paid the same in aggregate, unless you add additional qualifiers. Men and women performing the same work, with the same skills and experience should on average be paid the same. Note "on average" rather than "in aggregate". I have no problem with oil rig workers being paid more than food servers or nurses being paid more than valet parking attendants. I have no problem with career office workers being paid more than stay at home parents. Nothing in this paragraph is gender-specific; it's a function of the job and the value that job has to the employer.
- gizmo 10y ago
  > Regardless of any other condition? Pretty much. There is no reason why one gender would suddenly become lazier or more productive than another gender, so equal pay looks like the sensible default position to me.
  - sokoloff 10y ago
    OK, so how do you implement it? As an employer, how do I know how to trim the wages of the "overpaid" gender to make things balance out? Do I go by how the individual identifies, or their genetic composition? If someone takes a second job to help make ends meet, how do we notify their first employer to cut their wages appropriately?
    - gizmo 10y ago
      Individual employers can't fix this by themselves. They can -- and should -- minimize their contribution to the wage gap, but ultimately political change is needed as well. There are many studies on how to close the wage gap. For example see: http://www.epi.org/publication/closing-the-pay-gap-and-beyond/#epi-toc-2 http://www.epi.org/publication/closing-the-pay-gap-and-beyon...

dang 10y ago

> You really don't understand logic Personal attacks are not allowed on HN. You've been uncivil in other comments as well. We ban accounts that do this repeatedly, so please stop. While I have you... please don't engage in rehashed gender flamewars either. They're tedious, and this isn't the first time we've had to ask you. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13586154 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13586154 and marked it off-topic.