4 ms·

It seems weird to me that eliminating the "gender pay gap" is something businesses need to be actively concerned about. As long as they are offer equal pay for

It seems weird to me that eliminating the "gender pay gap" is something businesses need to be actively concerned about. As long as they are offer equal pay for equal work they should be largely agnostic to the lifestyles choices of their employees

mercer 9y ago
You're right, and that's exactly why we have these discussions, push for legislation, put (social) pressure on businesses, etc. The problem I see is that businesses are not agnostic to the lifestyle choices of their employees. Rather, they're antagonistic to them. If not for our collective efforts, I'm sure a business would happily force people to work over the weekend for a pittance, break down the work/leisure barrier even more, and possibly have us sign away the right to our souls and bodies upon employment.
- carsongross 9y ago
  The problem I see is that businesses are not agnostic to the lifestyle choices of their employees. The parent comment said: "As long as they are offer equal pay for equal work they should be largely agnostic to the lifestyles choices of their employees" But that's the rub: in many jobs you can actually accomplish more by working long hours, and often those are exactly the jobs that carry prestige and high salaries (banking, surgery, etc.) So employers can't be agnostic with respect to that particular lifestyle choice and still offer equal pay for equal work. If women are trading off work hours for free time, what people are really asking for is increased pay for women and decreased pay for men, based on faulty understanding of the marginal value of free time.
- adrienne 9y ago
  They used to do that. You know what stopped them? Unions. Now everyone on HN denigrates unions every chance they get, because "unions impede productivity" or whatever. It's like how we have a large population of antivaxxers because basically no one younger than 80 has actually seen someone in an iron lung, or met a rubella baby.

mercer 9y ago

You're right, and that's exactly why we have these discussions, push for legislation, put (social) pressure on businesses, etc. The problem I see is that businesses are not agnostic to the lifestyle choices of their employees. Rather, they're antagonistic to them. If not for our collective efforts, I'm sure a business would happily force people to work over the weekend for a pittance, break down the work/leisure barrier even more, and possibly have us sign away the right to our souls and bodies upon employment.

carsongross 9y ago
The problem I see is that businesses are not agnostic to the lifestyle choices of their employees. The parent comment said: "As long as they are offer equal pay for equal work they should be largely agnostic to the lifestyles choices of their employees" But that's the rub: in many jobs you can actually accomplish more by working long hours, and often those are exactly the jobs that carry prestige and high salaries (banking, surgery, etc.) So employers can't be agnostic with respect to that particular lifestyle choice and still offer equal pay for equal work. If women are trading off work hours for free time, what people are really asking for is increased pay for women and decreased pay for men, based on faulty understanding of the marginal value of free time.
adrienne 9y ago
They used to do that. You know what stopped them? Unions. Now everyone on HN denigrates unions every chance they get, because "unions impede productivity" or whatever. It's like how we have a large population of antivaxxers because basically no one younger than 80 has actually seen someone in an iron lung, or met a rubella baby.