5 ms·

There may be one under-reported angle on this. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264513198_Penalizing_Men_Who_Request_a_Family_Leave_Is_Flexibility_Stig

by geebee 10y ago

There may be one under-reported angle on this. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264513198_Penalizing_Men_Who_Request_a_Family_Leave_Is_Flexibility_Stigma_a_Femininity_Stigma https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264513198_Penalizin... There is clearly a correlation between men having children and men getting higher salaries, and the reverse for women. However, this may reflect the fact that women are more likely to withdraw from work to take care of children (regardless of whether they'd prefer to), and men may double down on work. Women are more likely to incur a penalty for taking time off due to child care needs, but that is largely because they are more likely to do so in the first place. Men do this much less often. However, there is evidence that the relatively small number of men who do this pay an unusually heavy career penalty for it. This can be a problem for women. If we reduce the stigma for taking time off and provide generous leave, but only for women, but penalize men for doing this, then we actually end up putting even more pressure on women to carry this obligation.

kefka 10y ago
So, is it fair to pay women less? /dons firesuit Discussing marriage, pregnancy, childbearing status or the like is an absolute no-go for employers. So, the ideal solution is to consider all women capable of this. Because of women's protected status of childbearing and leaving/returning, it would seem from a pure business perspective, that women are liabilities that can leave the job at any time and get it back, legally. What is this... scheduling latitude actually worth? I'd really like to see statistics on this. But on a sniff-test, this seems probably true and the reason why women are paid less: more risk. Men don't have the same options here, at least in the US. Ideally, to "Level the Playing Field", I'd like to see men with the same rights as women. But alas, we're not really headed into more workers' rights territory.
- TulliusCicero 10y ago
  From an individual homo economicus perspective, paying people who have heavy life obligations like kids less than people who can work tons of hours is rational. That's why government regulation is important if we want a different result.
  - kefka 10y ago
    > From an individual homo economicus perspective, paying people who have heavy life obligations like kids less than people who can work tons of hours is rational. Oh absolutely. That's why I'm coming at this from a purely business/economics viewpoint. It's stark, dehumanizing, and pretty damned depressing. I'd also argue, it's very much true (as in, fact practiced regularly, not a value judgement). > That's why government regulation is important if we want a different result. I agree. However, the majority party in office (in the USA) now wants nothing more than to repeal any and every business law and regulation. I do not see us little people with getting these kinds of equality laws passed. If anything, I'd expect that the meager protections women have would arguably be demolished.
    - Grustaf 10y ago
      >It's stark, dehumanizing, and pretty damned depressing Most of all it's pretty short sighted and myopic. Even from a strictly economical perspective, and assuming all of the above is correct, we need new generations of people to be born, and someone needs to take care of them. If women would be penalised for taking time off they would be less inclined to have children, at least if they have a well paying job. The long term consequences of that are quite bad. Greedy algorithms are never optimal in macro economics. The local maxima are never global.
      - geebee 10y ago
        It is a problem. In some ways, this is why I'm ok with the government setting the rules, sometimes fairly strict ones. One example might be laws limiting business hours, or laws the make a certain amount of vacation leave mandatory. They violate individual freedom, but they may also make it possible for people to close shop or take a vacation. Sweden recognized this problem - it created very generous programs for women, but realized that this was providing an incentive for women to leave the workforce, often in their 30s, an important decade for rising through the ranks, while men remained in the workforce. They then created more generous incentives for me, but discovered that the men weren't taking them - partly because of social and organizational pressure not to (perhaps related to the article I posted above). They finally created a very generous "use it or lose it" system where the men were just walking away from too much benefit not to take the policy, and I believe launched a major campaign to get men to take the leave. The idea is to create enough of a critical mass that the "male child leave" stigma would fade and this would become the norm.
- patrickg_zill 10y ago
  Unfortunately you just described why women should not be trained as doctors in the USA, where the total number of people trained each year is capped. Or rather, why doctor training should not be capped in the USA. If training was not capped, we could expect different results and there would be no argument concerning male/female, given the expense of training.
gshulegaard 10y ago
I don't know about "under reported" seeing as the author made a female oriented follow up: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/02/what_is_the_fem.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/02/what_is_the_fem.... It is as equally thoughtful as the source of this HN thread.

by geebee 10y ago

kefka 10y ago

So, is it fair to pay women less? /dons firesuit Discussing marriage, pregnancy, childbearing status or the like is an absolute no-go for employers. So, the ideal solution is to consider all women capable of this. Because of women's protected status of childbearing and leaving/returning, it would seem from a pure business perspective, that women are liabilities that can leave the job at any time and get it back, legally. What is this... scheduling latitude actually worth? I'd really like to see statistics on this. But on a sniff-test, this seems probably true and the reason why women are paid less: more risk. Men don't have the same options here, at least in the US. Ideally, to "Level the Playing Field", I'd like to see men with the same rights as women. But alas, we're not really headed into more workers' rights territory.

TulliusCicero 10y ago
From an individual homo economicus perspective, paying people who have heavy life obligations like kids less than people who can work tons of hours is rational. That's why government regulation is important if we want a different result.
- kefka 10y ago
  > From an individual homo economicus perspective, paying people who have heavy life obligations like kids less than people who can work tons of hours is rational. Oh absolutely. That's why I'm coming at this from a purely business/economics viewpoint. It's stark, dehumanizing, and pretty damned depressing. I'd also argue, it's very much true (as in, fact practiced regularly, not a value judgement). > That's why government regulation is important if we want a different result. I agree. However, the majority party in office (in the USA) now wants nothing more than to repeal any and every business law and regulation. I do not see us little people with getting these kinds of equality laws passed. If anything, I'd expect that the meager protections women have would arguably be demolished.
  - Grustaf 10y ago
    >It's stark, dehumanizing, and pretty damned depressing Most of all it's pretty short sighted and myopic. Even from a strictly economical perspective, and assuming all of the above is correct, we need new generations of people to be born, and someone needs to take care of them. If women would be penalised for taking time off they would be less inclined to have children, at least if they have a well paying job. The long term consequences of that are quite bad. Greedy algorithms are never optimal in macro economics. The local maxima are never global.
    - geebee 10y ago
      It is a problem. In some ways, this is why I'm ok with the government setting the rules, sometimes fairly strict ones. One example might be laws limiting business hours, or laws the make a certain amount of vacation leave mandatory. They violate individual freedom, but they may also make it possible for people to close shop or take a vacation. Sweden recognized this problem - it created very generous programs for women, but realized that this was providing an incentive for women to leave the workforce, often in their 30s, an important decade for rising through the ranks, while men remained in the workforce. They then created more generous incentives for me, but discovered that the men weren't taking them - partly because of social and organizational pressure not to (perhaps related to the article I posted above). They finally created a very generous "use it or lose it" system where the men were just walking away from too much benefit not to take the policy, and I believe launched a major campaign to get men to take the leave. The idea is to create enough of a critical mass that the "male child leave" stigma would fade and this would become the norm.
patrickg_zill 10y ago
Unfortunately you just described why women should not be trained as doctors in the USA, where the total number of people trained each year is capped. Or rather, why doctor training should not be capped in the USA. If training was not capped, we could expect different results and there would be no argument concerning male/female, given the expense of training.

gshulegaard 10y ago

I don't know about "under reported" seeing as the author made a female oriented follow up: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/02/what_is_the_fem.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/02/what_is_the_fem.... It is as equally thoughtful as the source of this HN thread.