5 ms·

> I agree that the gender pay gap is troubling, but I'd like to see more fathers as primary caregivers instead of looking for ways to make primary caregivers al

> I agree that the gender pay gap is troubling, but I'd like to see more fathers as primary caregivers instead of looking for ways to make primary caregivers also earn as much as primary earners. Why would you like to see this?

aaronblohowiak 9y ago
assuming the distribution of potential aptitude for each profession is roughly equal between women and men, the current system under utilizes potentially highly skilled women. I believe that I and my loved ones would benefit from a system that fully utilizes our best and brightest.
- jhcsugdijvcf 9y ago
  what about oh you know, evolution?
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  Indeed, as well as underutilizing men who might be highly skilled at child care.
  - Moshe_Silnorin 9y ago
    I suspect the brilliance of your comment will be unappreciated.
- searealist 9y ago
  Are you assuming men and women are not choosing these roles freely or are you suggesting to force them to do things they do not want to do?
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    Along those lines: "The Retro Wife: Feminists who say they’re having it all—by choosing to stay home." http://nymag.com/news/features/retro-wife-2013-3/ http://nymag.com/news/features/retro-wife-2013-3/
  - aaronblohowiak 9y ago
    I think you can change biases, incentives and cultural norms to influence people's choices. Current cultural norms guide people into an inefficient allocation.
    - tomp 9y ago
      If the distribution of skill is independent of sex (your assumption, if I understand correctly), why do you think the allocation is inefficient? If less women and more men were primary caregivers, then the outcome would be exactly the same as it is now, because skill is independent of sex.
      - Dylan16807 9y ago
        You're assuming that the primary caregiver will be randomly chosen. aaronblohowiak is assuming that the parent with better professional skills is more likely to work professionally, and the parent with better child-rearing skills is more likely to be the primary caregiver. This would lead to better outcomes everywhere.
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  > assuming the distribution of potential aptitude for each profession is roughly equal between women and men, the current system under utilizes potentially highly skilled women. You would also have to assume that domestic labor has less value than corporate employment.
  - regularfry 9y ago
    In a strictly cold, economic sense, this is probably true. You can make the assumption that domestic labour has a financial payoff in terms of better chances for the child in later life, but when you compare it to the effect of a higher household income right now, that later financial payoff has to be quite extreme to have an equivalent effect.
    - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
      Not at all. Imagine a person with a choice between working a $40,000/year job -- an amount higher than the average personal income -- or doing domestic labor. Of the $40,000, the government will take some $10,000 in federal and state taxes, another $10,000 in disqualification from income-based social assistance programs and you lose another $10,000 to transportation expenses to get to the job. The domestic labor still needs to be done (and having your spouse do it instead is just square one), so now you need to hire a nanny, a housekeeper, a tutor and a landscaper and pay more to eat less healthy takeout food more often. While spending less time with your children and having a much less flexible schedule. The people who choose differently are not inherently behaving irrationally or producing any inefficiency.
      - regularfry 9y ago
        My baseline here is this white paper: http://www.nber.org/papers/w19843 http://www.nber.org/papers/w19843 It's from 2014, and basically says that an increase in $40,000 in parental income (that is, incoming money today) would translate to an increase in the child's expected income at age 30 of about $13,000. If you're going to say that choosing domestic labour over a $40,000 job is economically rational, that's what it's got to beat. There are, of course, other drivers for parents. No parent is perfectly rational in an economic sense. That's why I qualified my comment.
- Moshe_Silnorin 9y ago
  Based on your assumptions this makes perfect sense. But in this world we are not allowed to question these assumptions. Tabboos are odd things, shields more than swords. And what requires a shield to survive, realities or fictions?
- ad_hominem 9y ago
  Your unstated assumption is that men and women have roughly equal dispositions toward child-rearing, which I personally wouldn't agree with. Men and women aren't fungible.
  - mst 9y ago
    I suspect that it wouldn't need to be nearly roughly equal for the current situation to suck for the most domestic men and least domestic women.
  - kobeya 9y ago
    Really depends on the man and the woman.
- tomp 9y ago
  > assuming the distribution of potential aptitude for each profession is roughly equal between women and men, the current system under utilizes potentially highly skilled women. This is very likely a 180 degree wrong conclusion. "assuming the distribution of potential aptitude for each profession is roughly equal between women and men," the breakdown of the allocation of workers by sex is mostly irrelevant.
rlabrecque 9y ago
I would like to see this... Because why the fuck not? If I have kids with my SO one day it would be fucking amazing to be able to spend just as much time with my kid as my wife would. We should both be getting the same amount of months off, and be able to choose how we apply them. (I.E. I'd probably like the first month off, she could probably take the first 6 months off, and then I'd take my final 5 months off after that.)
notacoward 9y ago
Maybe because it's not good when people with both the desire and the aptitude for something are discriminated against and hindered in pursuit of their personal goals? Seeing more men in that role would be indicative of greater equality, and that's something many of us like to see.

aaronblohowiak 9y ago

assuming the distribution of potential aptitude for each profession is roughly equal between women and men, the current system under utilizes potentially highly skilled women. I believe that I and my loved ones would benefit from a system that fully utilizes our best and brightest.

jhcsugdijvcf 9y ago
what about oh you know, evolution?
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
Indeed, as well as underutilizing men who might be highly skilled at child care.
- Moshe_Silnorin 9y ago
  I suspect the brilliance of your comment will be unappreciated.
searealist 9y ago
Are you assuming men and women are not choosing these roles freely or are you suggesting to force them to do things they do not want to do?
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  Along those lines: "The Retro Wife: Feminists who say they’re having it all—by choosing to stay home." http://nymag.com/news/features/retro-wife-2013-3/ http://nymag.com/news/features/retro-wife-2013-3/
- aaronblohowiak 9y ago
  I think you can change biases, incentives and cultural norms to influence people's choices. Current cultural norms guide people into an inefficient allocation.
  - tomp 9y ago
    If the distribution of skill is independent of sex (your assumption, if I understand correctly), why do you think the allocation is inefficient? If less women and more men were primary caregivers, then the outcome would be exactly the same as it is now, because skill is independent of sex.
    - Dylan16807 9y ago
      You're assuming that the primary caregiver will be randomly chosen. aaronblohowiak is assuming that the parent with better professional skills is more likely to work professionally, and the parent with better child-rearing skills is more likely to be the primary caregiver. This would lead to better outcomes everywhere.
AnthonyMouse 9y ago
> assuming the distribution of potential aptitude for each profession is roughly equal between women and men, the current system under utilizes potentially highly skilled women. You would also have to assume that domestic labor has less value than corporate employment.
- regularfry 9y ago
  In a strictly cold, economic sense, this is probably true. You can make the assumption that domestic labour has a financial payoff in terms of better chances for the child in later life, but when you compare it to the effect of a higher household income right now, that later financial payoff has to be quite extreme to have an equivalent effect.
  - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
    Not at all. Imagine a person with a choice between working a $40,000/year job -- an amount higher than the average personal income -- or doing domestic labor. Of the $40,000, the government will take some $10,000 in federal and state taxes, another $10,000 in disqualification from income-based social assistance programs and you lose another $10,000 to transportation expenses to get to the job. The domestic labor still needs to be done (and having your spouse do it instead is just square one), so now you need to hire a nanny, a housekeeper, a tutor and a landscaper and pay more to eat less healthy takeout food more often. While spending less time with your children and having a much less flexible schedule. The people who choose differently are not inherently behaving irrationally or producing any inefficiency.
    - regularfry 9y ago
      My baseline here is this white paper: http://www.nber.org/papers/w19843 http://www.nber.org/papers/w19843 It's from 2014, and basically says that an increase in $40,000 in parental income (that is, incoming money today) would translate to an increase in the child's expected income at age 30 of about $13,000. If you're going to say that choosing domestic labour over a $40,000 job is economically rational, that's what it's got to beat. There are, of course, other drivers for parents. No parent is perfectly rational in an economic sense. That's why I qualified my comment.
Moshe_Silnorin 9y ago
Based on your assumptions this makes perfect sense. But in this world we are not allowed to question these assumptions. Tabboos are odd things, shields more than swords. And what requires a shield to survive, realities or fictions?
ad_hominem 9y ago
Your unstated assumption is that men and women have roughly equal dispositions toward child-rearing, which I personally wouldn't agree with. Men and women aren't fungible.
- mst 9y ago
  I suspect that it wouldn't need to be nearly roughly equal for the current situation to suck for the most domestic men and least domestic women.
- kobeya 9y ago
  Really depends on the man and the woman.
tomp 9y ago
> assuming the distribution of potential aptitude for each profession is roughly equal between women and men, the current system under utilizes potentially highly skilled women. This is very likely a 180 degree wrong conclusion. "assuming the distribution of potential aptitude for each profession is roughly equal between women and men," the breakdown of the allocation of workers by sex is mostly irrelevant.

rlabrecque 9y ago

I would like to see this... Because why the fuck not? If I have kids with my SO one day it would be fucking amazing to be able to spend just as much time with my kid as my wife would. We should both be getting the same amount of months off, and be able to choose how we apply them. (I.E. I'd probably like the first month off, she could probably take the first 6 months off, and then I'd take my final 5 months off after that.)

notacoward 9y ago

Maybe because it's not good when people with both the desire and the aptitude for something are discriminated against and hindered in pursuit of their personal goals? Seeing more men in that role would be indicative of greater equality, and that's something many of us like to see.