6 ms·

The point isn't that discrimination being rational makes it ok. The point is that if discrimination is irrational, the best way to fix it is different from the

by imh 10y ago

The point isn't that discrimination being rational makes it ok. The point is that if discrimination is irrational, the best way to fix it is different from the best solution if it were rational. It's an important factor in deciding how to best work towards equality. If it's irrational, educating employers may be a great option. If it's rational, we probably need to level the playing field somehow (e.g. make it just as ok for dads to stay home as it is for moms or something).

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Sweden tried that. They gave out 330 days of maternity + paternity leave. Women used 94% of it. So they had to make some of it "use it or lose it" for men only. Men started taking the bare minimum, so Sweden is planning to increase the "use it or lose it" portion. http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/08/snack_bags_and_a_regular_paycheck_the_happy_life_of_a_swedish_dad.html?from=rss http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/08/snack... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/28/swedish-fathers-paid-paternity-parental-leave https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/28/swedish-father... Consider the possibility that maybe men just don't want to stay home as much as women, even if it's acceptable.
- patmcc 10y ago
  "Legally allowed" != "acceptable". I can't speak to Sweden directly, but Canada has (almost) gender-neutral parental leave laws and many industries/companies still consider it very unusual if a father wants to take more than three or four weeks off at the birth of a child. I have friends that explicitly told me they would have liked to stay home more, but weren't able to because they feared what would happen at work.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    According to the slate article it's normal and socially accepted. Men still don't do it much.
    - emodendroket 10y ago
      If men don't do it then how is it normal for men to do it?
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        Most men don't deadlift much, but it isn't considered abnormal that I do so on a regular basis. Most men don't sleep with other men, but that is again not considered abnormal or socialhttp unacceptable.
  - hn_throwaway_99 10y ago
    > I have friends that explicitly told me they would have liked to stay home more, but weren't able to because they feared what would happen at work. For anyone in a competitive work environment who wants to get ahead, though, it's not surprising that someone would feel pressure to take less time off even if they had a very supportive employer. It seems kind of obvious to me that I would feel less "behind" in work if I took 4 weeks off instead of 8.
- mjevans 10y ago
  I think you're jumping to several conclusions that could use additional research. Presently the best we can say from the data is that men seem to take close to the bare minimum of required time off, so it makes sense to increase that time if the goal is men spending more time with the newborn and/or supporting their partner. Another conclusion may be that while it it /legally/ acceptable, it is not yet socially acceptable. Finally, maybe an alternative to that approach would be better. Something like a year where both parents are /required/ to be home taking care of the baby.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    If you believe that only enlightened bureaucrats can properly make family decisions, and parents are incapable of doing so, that may indeed be good policy. It may not surprise you that I would prefer to make my own choices.
    - TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
      Plenty of people want to make their own choices, but corporate culture imposes choices on them. That does indeed make parents incapable of making family decisions. Your mistake is in assuming that the legislation targets individuals. It doesn't. It targets corporations that take advantage of individuals.
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        Corporate culture merely provides a choice. You can always quit your job if you dislike the choice offered. Legislation does target individuals; it forbids me from choosing money over time. As a person with no desire to stay home for long periods, this directly harms me.
        icebraining 10y ago
        How does it forbid you? The law doesn't force you to take that time; it merely doesn't allow your partner to take it on your behalf.
- imh 10y ago
  Maybe I phrased it poorly. Being ok or acceptable isn't exactly what I meant re: leveling the playing field. Maybe it needs to be expected or something. I wouldn't expect something so cultural to balance out in under a generation anyways. Culture takes time (and sometimes it just takes new people). The point wasn't the example of paternity leave anyhow. The point is that some kind of leveling would need to happen if we want to equalize on some rational form of discrimination.
- willvarfar 10y ago
  It's strange, I don't recognize that Sweden. In computer-type jobs it's normal for men to take plenty of parental leave, and no stigma. Many work reduced work weeks too, right up until the youngest kid is 8 years old. I know builders and such who do the same. And I've seen a few young female builders around too. So I'm racking my brains trying to think what type of people in what type of job can be skewing the statistics. Sweden is not a prejudice free country, but it's way better than Britian and, from the awful impression I've got from many short visits, the US.
Pica_soO 10y ago
If its so irrational, why do non-irrational companys not wipe irrational companys from the face of the earth?
- mcguire 10y ago
  Has any company ever tried being non-irrational? I highly recommend Misbehaving by Richard Thaler, particularly the chapter of the American football draft in this instance.
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    If it's irrational but companies are inherently irrational then the result is the same as if it's rational and companies are rational, right? Either way you need something beside the Invisible Hand if you hope to solve the problem.
    - mcguire 10y ago
      'Rational' has a specific meaning in economics; on the weak end, it means an oddly strong knowledge of probability and game theory, while at the strong end it means completely prescient. Outside of some limited cases, such as small groups of economists, there is no evidence that anyone, anywhere, had behaved 'rationally'.
      - emodendroket 10y ago
        What I'm saying is that question isn't even really material to the discussion at hand. Either discrimination is rational and rational economic actors are discriminating, or else it's irrational and irrational economic actors are discriminating (or else maybe it's rational and irrational economic actors are acting rationally for irrational reasons, or whatever combination of the two you like). Either way the market will not fix the problem without intervention.

by imh 10y ago

yummyfajitas 10y ago

Sweden tried that. They gave out 330 days of maternity + paternity leave. Women used 94% of it. So they had to make some of it "use it or lose it" for men only. Men started taking the bare minimum, so Sweden is planning to increase the "use it or lose it" portion. http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/08/snack_bags_and_a_regular_paycheck_the_happy_life_of_a_swedish_dad.html?from=rss http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/08/snack... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/28/swedish-fathers-paid-paternity-parental-leave https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/28/swedish-father... Consider the possibility that maybe men just don't want to stay home as much as women, even if it's acceptable.

patmcc 10y ago
"Legally allowed" != "acceptable". I can't speak to Sweden directly, but Canada has (almost) gender-neutral parental leave laws and many industries/companies still consider it very unusual if a father wants to take more than three or four weeks off at the birth of a child. I have friends that explicitly told me they would have liked to stay home more, but weren't able to because they feared what would happen at work.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  According to the slate article it's normal and socially accepted. Men still don't do it much.
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    If men don't do it then how is it normal for men to do it?
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      Most men don't deadlift much, but it isn't considered abnormal that I do so on a regular basis. Most men don't sleep with other men, but that is again not considered abnormal or socialhttp unacceptable.
- hn_throwaway_99 10y ago
  > I have friends that explicitly told me they would have liked to stay home more, but weren't able to because they feared what would happen at work. For anyone in a competitive work environment who wants to get ahead, though, it's not surprising that someone would feel pressure to take less time off even if they had a very supportive employer. It seems kind of obvious to me that I would feel less "behind" in work if I took 4 weeks off instead of 8.
mjevans 10y ago
I think you're jumping to several conclusions that could use additional research. Presently the best we can say from the data is that men seem to take close to the bare minimum of required time off, so it makes sense to increase that time if the goal is men spending more time with the newborn and/or supporting their partner. Another conclusion may be that while it it /legally/ acceptable, it is not yet socially acceptable. Finally, maybe an alternative to that approach would be better. Something like a year where both parents are /required/ to be home taking care of the baby.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  If you believe that only enlightened bureaucrats can properly make family decisions, and parents are incapable of doing so, that may indeed be good policy. It may not surprise you that I would prefer to make my own choices.
  - TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
    Plenty of people want to make their own choices, but corporate culture imposes choices on them. That does indeed make parents incapable of making family decisions. Your mistake is in assuming that the legislation targets individuals. It doesn't. It targets corporations that take advantage of individuals.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      Corporate culture merely provides a choice. You can always quit your job if you dislike the choice offered. Legislation does target individuals; it forbids me from choosing money over time. As a person with no desire to stay home for long periods, this directly harms me.
      - icebraining 10y ago
        How does it forbid you? The law doesn't force you to take that time; it merely doesn't allow your partner to take it on your behalf.
imh 10y ago
Maybe I phrased it poorly. Being ok or acceptable isn't exactly what I meant re: leveling the playing field. Maybe it needs to be expected or something. I wouldn't expect something so cultural to balance out in under a generation anyways. Culture takes time (and sometimes it just takes new people). The point wasn't the example of paternity leave anyhow. The point is that some kind of leveling would need to happen if we want to equalize on some rational form of discrimination.
willvarfar 10y ago
It's strange, I don't recognize that Sweden. In computer-type jobs it's normal for men to take plenty of parental leave, and no stigma. Many work reduced work weeks too, right up until the youngest kid is 8 years old. I know builders and such who do the same. And I've seen a few young female builders around too. So I'm racking my brains trying to think what type of people in what type of job can be skewing the statistics. Sweden is not a prejudice free country, but it's way better than Britian and, from the awful impression I've got from many short visits, the US.

Pica_soO 10y ago

If its so irrational, why do non-irrational companys not wipe irrational companys from the face of the earth?

mcguire 10y ago
Has any company ever tried being non-irrational? I highly recommend Misbehaving by Richard Thaler, particularly the chapter of the American football draft in this instance.
- emodendroket 10y ago
  If it's irrational but companies are inherently irrational then the result is the same as if it's rational and companies are rational, right? Either way you need something beside the Invisible Hand if you hope to solve the problem.
  - mcguire 10y ago
    'Rational' has a specific meaning in economics; on the weak end, it means an oddly strong knowledge of probability and game theory, while at the strong end it means completely prescient. Outside of some limited cases, such as small groups of economists, there is no evidence that anyone, anywhere, had behaved 'rationally'.
    - emodendroket 10y ago
      What I'm saying is that question isn't even really material to the discussion at hand. Either discrimination is rational and rational economic actors are discriminating, or else it's irrational and irrational economic actors are discriminating (or else maybe it's rational and irrational economic actors are acting rationally for irrational reasons, or whatever combination of the two you like). Either way the market will not fix the problem without intervention.