2 ms·

I just think it is extremely discriminatory to make hiring and salary decisions based on the faulty assumption that all women want to raise children.

• pc2g4d 9y ago
  It is discriminatory and I think it's fair to feel upset at being painted with such a broad brush. It seems right now that the choice faced by society is framed as binary: should we require equal pay across genders, or should we not? And each of these possibilities has both costs and benefits. Here are some costs and benefits of equal pay worth considering: Costs: By requiring employers to pay women more than the employers assess to be their worth, fewer women will be employed, this at a time when gender ratios in many professions (especially IT!) are horrendously lopsided. Essentially, equal pay can be implemented as a price floor, meaning that the amount of female employment demanded will be less than it would at the natural equilibrium. Legislating equal pay might change some attitudes, but just entrench others. Benefits: The women who are working get paid more. Society is seen as more just which likely alleviates angst all around. Women's voices are seen as more valuable because women are paid just as much as men, which disempowers sexists in their discrimination. More women will want to work at the higher price point, giving firms a better pool of applicants to choose from. Invert these points to get costs/benefits of the status quo. Both choices seem to incur both notable benefits and substantial costs. Surely there's some third way?