4 ms·

Funny enough, I agree with both you and the person you're arguing against. I agree that the wage gap (as defined by the difference in how much men and women ear

Funny enough, I agree with both you and the person you're arguing against. I agree that the wage gap (as defined by the difference in how much men and women earn when working in the same position with the same skills) is probably pretty close to 6%. [0] I also agree that there is a big problem currently. In my opinion, the problem is twofold. First of all, this gap - whatever you think it is, 6% or 9% or 21% - it is a problem. Most Americans live pretty close to financial ruin, like it or not. 76% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck [1] and 63% of Americans are one missed paycheck away from the streets [2]. A 6% pay gap is about two paychecks. Even though it may not seem like much to a HN reader with significant savings or a safety net, this small gap spread across the whole population actually causes problems. The second part of the problem is societal: women are discouraged from pursuing higher-paying jobs by society. This isn't the fault of the women themselves, or the people doing the hiring, but sexism and biases hidden everywhere. In my opinion, this is the best support for affirmative action: more women doing a certain job translates to more women interested in that career. These two things combined are a double whammy that currently mean that less women work and women who do work are not always financially secure - and that's the big problem here. If you're a woman from an upper class background and have been encouraged by those around you, you may never experience any of these problems, and that's great. But if you're an average American woman, these things have a very real impact on your life. This also explains the giant gulfs of opinion I see here on HN. Most people here are relatively wealthy - remember, if you earn more than 36k a year, you earn more than most working Americans. $70k/yr means you earn more than 75% of American workers. I'd bet the vast majority of US programmers on here earn above 70k/yr. It's easy to get caught in a bubble and say 'well the women around me seem to have no problems!' and forget about the majority of the country. At the same time, if you live in a low-income area, those two "missed" paychecks might be absolutely killer. [0] I have a personal, unfounded feeling that it's closer to 10% - maybe 8-9% if I had to guess. [1] http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/24/pf/emergency-savings/ http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/24/pf/emergency-savings/ [2] http://www.marketwatch.com/story/most-americans-are-one-paycheck-away-from-the-street-2016-01-06 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/most-americans-are-one-payc...

brighteyes 10y ago
> The second part of the problem is societal: women are discouraged from pursuing higher-paying jobs by society. This isn't the fault of the women themselves I really think that point of view is both wrong and harmful. It's true that society influences people in various ways. But you're assuming that what men do is the "default", and so if women do it less, they are discouraged. Instead, looking at it from the women's side, perhaps it is men that are overly encouraged to do certain things. For example, men are highly overrepresented in prisons compared to women, and that's not good. That might be an extreme example, but the fact is that many studies show that men care more about careers that make money, while women care more about making a positive difference in the world (obviously, both only on average). Given that, perhaps society pushes men too much towards tech and finance and so forth. It would be better if we nudged men instead towards nurturing professions, where you help people every day, like nursing or teaching. In other words, society influences both genders in various ways. Any difference could be either women pushed one way or men pulled the other.
- elcritch 10y ago
  >> The second part of the problem is societal: women are discouraged from pursuing higher-paying jobs by society. This isn't the fault of the women themselves > I really think that point of view is both wrong and harmful. > It's true that society influences people in various ways. But you're assuming that what men do is the "default", and so if women do it less, they are discouraged. Additionally, it seems implicit in the GP's POV that money (or higher pay) is necessarily the better end goal, rather than caring for others or improving society. What if money isn't the most appropriate proxy of value and worth? (And to be clear, I wouldn't agree with using that to "whitewash" paying someone less because "their pay should be their enjoyment")
- jsscclr 10y ago
  I agree. Why are we so focused on whether women make less than men? Wouldn't quality of life be a better metric? To say women are discouraged from taking higher paying positions takes away a woman's agency. Perhaps they made an educated decision?

brighteyes 10y ago

> The second part of the problem is societal: women are discouraged from pursuing higher-paying jobs by society. This isn't the fault of the women themselves I really think that point of view is both wrong and harmful. It's true that society influences people in various ways. But you're assuming that what men do is the "default", and so if women do it less, they are discouraged. Instead, looking at it from the women's side, perhaps it is men that are overly encouraged to do certain things. For example, men are highly overrepresented in prisons compared to women, and that's not good. That might be an extreme example, but the fact is that many studies show that men care more about careers that make money, while women care more about making a positive difference in the world (obviously, both only on average). Given that, perhaps society pushes men too much towards tech and finance and so forth. It would be better if we nudged men instead towards nurturing professions, where you help people every day, like nursing or teaching. In other words, society influences both genders in various ways. Any difference could be either women pushed one way or men pulled the other.

elcritch 10y ago
>> The second part of the problem is societal: women are discouraged from pursuing higher-paying jobs by society. This isn't the fault of the women themselves > I really think that point of view is both wrong and harmful. > It's true that society influences people in various ways. But you're assuming that what men do is the "default", and so if women do it less, they are discouraged. Additionally, it seems implicit in the GP's POV that money (or higher pay) is necessarily the better end goal, rather than caring for others or improving society. What if money isn't the most appropriate proxy of value and worth? (And to be clear, I wouldn't agree with using that to "whitewash" paying someone less because "their pay should be their enjoyment")
jsscclr 10y ago
I agree. Why are we so focused on whether women make less than men? Wouldn't quality of life be a better metric? To say women are discouraged from taking higher paying positions takes away a woman's agency. Perhaps they made an educated decision?